TaxonomyEligibility workflowEU

EU Taxonomy Activity Eligibility Workflow

A workflow for deciding whether an economic activity is Taxonomy-eligible by matching it to delegated-act activity descriptions before any alignment conclusion is made.

Use it to separate eligible, non-eligible, and not-yet-supported activity claims before turnover, CapEx, OpEx, GAR, or narrative disclosures are prepared.

Author
Sorena AI
Published
May 9, 2026
Updated
Jul 24, 2026
Sections
4

Structured answer sets in this page tree.

Primary sources
6

Cited legal and guidance references.

Publication metadata
Sorena AI
Published May 9, 2026
Updated Jul 24, 2026
Overview

asks whether an economic activity is described in a delegated act adopted under the Taxonomy Regulation. It does not show that the activity meets technical screening criteria, does no significant harm, satisfies minimum safeguards, or is environmentally sustainable. Regulation (EU) 2026/73 applies from 1 January 2026, but an undertaking may use the rules in force on 31 December 2025 for a financial year that began in 2025. Under the amended rules, record any permitted assessment omission and report the affected amount separately as non-material.

Section 1

Start with the eligibility decision rule

The first workflow control is a definition check. Under the Disclosures Delegated Act, a Taxonomy-eligible economic activity is an activity described in delegated acts adopted for the Taxonomy environmental objectives, regardless of whether it meets any or all technical screening criteria in those delegated acts.

That means the eligibility record should never say that a mapped activity is sustainable, aligned, DNSH-compliant, or minimum-safeguards compliant unless a separate alignment assessment supports that conclusion.

  • Decision question: is the undertaking's economic activity described in an applicable EU Taxonomy delegated act?
  • Eligibility result: eligible, non-eligible, unresolved because the activity description or reporting boundary is not specific enough, or not assessed under a documented materiality option.
  • Alignment separation: record substantial-contribution criteria, DNSH criteria, and minimum safeguards as later tests, not as eligibility requirements.
  • Evidence rule: cite the delegated-act activity description or Commission notice used to interpret the activity scope.
  • Public wording rule: describe eligibility as a reporting classification, not as proof of environmental performance.
Recommended next step

Turn activity mapping into reportable evidence

This workflow helps connect EU Taxonomy activity descriptions, eligibility decisions, KPI impacts, owners, and evidence records before alignment or Article 8 reporting is finalized.

Section 2

Map each activity before calculating KPIs

Run eligibility at the level of economic activities, not at the level of business units, brands, suppliers, or broad product families. The activity record should show the resources, process, and output that produce goods or services, then match that activity to the relevant delegated-act description.

can help users navigate the Taxonomy, but they are not the final eligibility test. If a NACE code is broader than the delegated-act activity description, the description prevails; if the activity fits the description even without a listed NACE code, it can still be eligible.

  • Create one row per economic activity, with the product or service output and the accounting entity or group boundary.
  • Record the delegated act, annex, activity number or description, environmental objective, and any enabling, transitional, or adaptation label visible in the source.
  • Use as search aids and cross-checks, then document the final match against the exact activity description.
  • Mark upstream or downstream value-chain activity as eligible only when the activity description explicitly covers it.
  • Keep unresolved activities out of the eligible numerator until the description match is clear enough for review.
  • For reporting under the amended rules from 1 January 2026, keep activities omitted from assessment under a permitted materiality threshold in a separate non-material amount; do not relabel them as non-eligible.
Section 3

Connect eligibility to turnover, CapEx, OpEx, and financial exposures

After the activity match is documented, classify which disclosure metric the activity can affect. For non-financial undertakings, Article 8 reporting uses the proportions of turnover, capital expenditure, and operating expenditure associated with Taxonomy-eligible and Taxonomy-aligned economic activities.

For financial undertakings, eligibility work depends on the applicable financial-undertaking templates and the available information from counterparties, assets, use-of-proceeds instruments, or underwriting activity. The workflow should record the source of the counterparty or asset-level eligibility data rather than treating a financial exposure as eligible by label alone.

  • Turnover: link eligible revenue to the economic activity and the revenue basis used in the financial statements.
  • CapEx: identify whether expenditure relates to eligible assets or processes, a plan to expand or upgrade eligible activities, or purchases of eligible output or individual measures.
  • OpEx: identify the eligible activity or plan that the operating expenditure supports and keep OpEx categories consistent with the Annex I methodology.
  • Financial exposures: record whether the value comes from issuer-level turnover or CapEx KPIs, use-of-proceeds allocation, covered assets, /GIR logic, or another template-specific method.
  • Double counting: explain how the same turnover, CapEx, OpEx, bond proceeds, debt security, or exposure was counted only once in the relevant KPI numerator.
Section 4

Evidence fields and stop checks for eligibility review

The eligibility file should be reviewable without reconstructing the whole analysis. Each row should show the source, the activity description match, the KPI impact, the owner, and the reason the claim is limited to eligibility or escalated into alignment testing.

Stop the workflow when the public wording is broader than the source, when a NACE code is being used as the only proof, when voluntary information is mixed with mandatory disclosures without explanation, or when a draft or advisory source is treated as a binding delegated act.

  • Source fields: external URL, legal or guidance status, act or notice number, activity description, and short source quote.
  • Activity fields: entity boundary, product or service output, delegated-act match, objective, NACE code if used, and unresolved interpretation notes.
  • KPI fields: turnover, CapEx, OpEx, , covered asset, use-of-proceeds, or non-life underwriting impact, with numerator and denominator rationale where relevant.
  • Review fields: preparer, finance owner, sustainability owner, legal or assurance reviewer, decision date, and next trigger for delegated-act or notice changes.
  • Stop checks: no sustainability claim from eligibility alone, no unlabelled voluntary reporting, no duplicated numerator amounts, no missing explanation for non-eligible activities, and no materiality omission recorded as non-eligible.
Primary sources

References and citations

eur-lex.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Article 1 introduces 10% activity-assessment thresholds for non-financial undertaking turnover and CapEx, conditional OpEx options, and separate reporting of the omitted amounts as non-material.
eur-lex.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Supports separating voluntary and mandatory reporting, explaining KPI allocations, avoiding double counting, and presenting activity-level CapEx information.
"should not be given more prominence than the mandatory reporting"
eur-lex.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Specifies Article 8 KPIs and qualitative disclosure requirements for non-financial and financial undertakings, including turnover, CapEx, OpEx, and financial-undertaking templates.
"turnover, capital expenditure and operating expenditure"
eur-lex.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Sets the separate conditions for an environmentally sustainable economic activity: substantial contribution, no significant harm, minimum safeguards, and technical screening criteria.
"qualifies as environmentally sustainable"
Related guides

Explore more topics

DNSH Appendix C under the EU Taxonomy: chemicals evidence FAQ
Practical FAQ on the current EU Taxonomy DNSH Appendix C chemicals criteria, including listed substances, the 0.1% w/w SVHC threshold, alternatives, and controlled conditions.
EU Taxonomy 2026 simplification: what should teams do?
cited FAQ on EU Taxonomy 2026 simplification, Regulation (EU) 2026/73, Article 8 reporting, DNSH evidence, and limits on unsupported claims.
EU Taxonomy activity evidence packs: what to retain
A practical FAQ on EU Taxonomy activity evidence packs: eligibility, alignment, DNSH, minimum safeguards, KPI traceability, and cited-source review records.
EU Taxonomy Applicability Test for Eligibility and Alignment
Test EU Taxonomy applicability by separating Article 8 reporting scope, Taxonomy eligibility, Taxonomy alignment, DNSH, minimum safeguards, and KPI evidence.
EU Taxonomy Article 8 disclosure templates
Cited EU Taxonomy templates for Article 8 reporting, covering non-financial KPIs, financial undertaking annexes, eligibility and alignment evidence, GAR inputs, and publication checks.
EU Taxonomy Article 8 KPI disclosure workflow
cited workflow for EU Taxonomy Article 8 KPI disclosures, covering turnover, CapEx, OpEx, GAR dependencies, templates, contextual information, and publication checks.
EU Taxonomy Article 8 Scope and Reporting Entities
Determine which financial and non-financial undertakings report under EU Taxonomy Article 8, which annexes apply, and what evidence supports the reporting boundary.
EU Taxonomy Article 8 Scope FAQ
cited FAQ on EU Taxonomy Article 8 scope, including who reports, which KPI framework applies, and what evidence teams should retain.
EU Taxonomy auditor evidence: what to keep for alignment review
Practical FAQ on EU Taxonomy auditor evidence: what evidence supports eligibility, alignment, DNSH, minimum safeguards, and Article 8 KPI disclosures.
EU Taxonomy CapEx Plan Evidence Workflow
Build an EU Taxonomy CapEx plan evidence workflow for Article 8 CapEx KPI reporting, management-body approval, milestones, amendments, allocation, and restatement controls.
EU Taxonomy CapEx Plan Evidence: Article 8 checklist
Build evidence for EU Taxonomy CapEx plans under Article 8, Annex I Section 1.1.2.2 and the Disclosures Delegated Act.
EU Taxonomy CapEx Plans FAQ: Article 8 CapEx KPI
Practical FAQ on EU Taxonomy CapEx plans under Article 8, Annex I Section 1.1.2.2, management-body approval, timing, activity-level evidence, and KPI restatement.
EU Taxonomy compliance guide: eligibility, alignment and Article 8 KPIs
Practical EU Taxonomy compliance guide for mapping eligible activities, testing alignment, collecting DNSH and minimum-safeguards evidence, and preparing Article 8 disclosures.
EU Taxonomy deadlines and Article 8 compliance calendar
EU Taxonomy calendar covering Article 8 reporting phases, 2026 disclosure changes, environmental objective dates, and evidence review gates.
EU Taxonomy Delegated Act Change Tracker
Track adopted and proposed EU Taxonomy delegated-act changes by source, status, affected criteria, Article 8 disclosure impact, owner, and evidence update.
EU Taxonomy delegated act changes: what teams should check
FAQ on handling EU Taxonomy delegated act changes: official source checks, application dates, affected criteria, disclosures, DNSH evidence, and review records.
EU Taxonomy Delegated Acts Tracker
Track EU Taxonomy delegated acts by legal status, objective, reporting impact, activity scope, DNSH criteria, Article 8 disclosures, and owner follow-up.
EU Taxonomy DNSH and Minimum Safeguards evidence guide
EU Taxonomy DNSH and minimum safeguards guide covering Article 3 alignment, Article 17 harm tests, Article 18 procedures, evidence, and KPI controls.
EU Taxonomy DNSH Appendix C: chemicals evidence guide
Current EU Taxonomy Appendix C chemicals guide covering the 2026 replacement criteria, listed substances, legal exemptions, the SVHC threshold, and evidence records.
EU Taxonomy Eligibility vs Alignment
Compare EU Taxonomy eligibility and alignment under Article 8: what each term means, what evidence is needed, which KPIs are affected, and why eligibility is not proof of sustainability.
EU Taxonomy Eligibility vs Alignment Explained
Explain EU Taxonomy eligibility and alignment under Article 8, the Disclosures Delegated Act, Article 3, technical screening criteria, DNSH, and safeguards.
EU Taxonomy eligibility vs alignment: what is the difference?
Eligibility means an activity is covered by Taxonomy delegated acts; alignment means it also meets Article 3 conditions, technical screening criteria, DNSH, and minimum safeguards.
EU Taxonomy FAQ: eligibility, alignment, DNSH, safeguards, and Article 8
EU Taxonomy FAQ hub for eligibility, alignment, technical screening criteria, DNSH, minimum safeguards, Article 8 KPIs, delegated acts, and evidence records.
EU Taxonomy Financial KPIs and Green Asset Ratio (GAR) FAQ
FAQ on EU Taxonomy Article 8 financial undertaking KPIs, credit institution Green Asset Ratio (GAR), reporting dates, exclusions, and qualitative disclosures.
EU Taxonomy GAR and financial undertaking KPIs
EU Taxonomy Article 8 financial undertaking KPI guide covering GAR, sector KPIs, 2026 denominator rules, materiality options, exclusions, and evidence.
EU Taxonomy GAR KPI workflow for credit institutions
Prepare EU Taxonomy Green Asset Ratio stock and flow disclosures with current rules for covered assets, exclusions, materiality, and evidence.
EU Taxonomy gas and nuclear activities: when can they align?
Explain how the EU Taxonomy Complementary Climate Delegated Act treats specified gas and nuclear activities, alignment criteria, DNSH evidence, and separate disclosures.
EU Taxonomy minimum safeguards FAQ: Article 18 evidence
FAQ on EU Taxonomy minimum safeguards under Article 18: who must comply, which OECD, UNGP, ILO and human-rights evidence to keep, and common reporting mistakes.
EU Taxonomy Minimum Safeguards: Article 18 and evidence
Understand how Article 18 minimum safeguards fit into EU Taxonomy alignment, which international standards they reference, and what evidence supports the assessment.
EU Taxonomy non-financial KPIs: turnover, CapEx and OpEx
Article 8 FAQ for non-financial undertakings reporting EU Taxonomy turnover, CapEx and OpEx KPIs, with evidence and source checks.
EU Taxonomy Penalties and Fines: Article 22 Disclosure Risk
EU Taxonomy Article 22 explains who sets penalties for Articles 5, 6, and 7 financial product disclosures and how to research the applicable national rule.
EU Taxonomy Regulation Checklist for Eligibility and Alignment
A cited EU Taxonomy checklist for mapping eligible activities, testing alignment, documenting DNSH and minimum safeguards, and preparing Article 8 KPI disclosures.
EU Taxonomy Regulation requirements: eligibility, alignment, KPIs
Understand the core EU Taxonomy requirements: Article 3 alignment tests, eligible activities, DNSH, minimum safeguards, Article 8 KPIs, and evidence to keep.
EU Taxonomy screening criteria and documentation guide
How to document EU Taxonomy eligibility, alignment, technical screening criteria, DNSH, minimum safeguards, and Article 8 KPI disclosures without overstating the evidence.
EU Taxonomy Six Environmental Objectives | Article 9 FAQ
Plain-English FAQ on the six EU Taxonomy environmental objectives in Article 9 and how teams should map activities, DNSH checks, safeguards, and evidence.
EU Taxonomy vs CSRD: Article 8 Reporting Comparison
Compare EU Taxonomy Article 8 disclosures with current Accounting Directive sustainability-reporting scope, evidence, KPIs, assurance, and reuse limits.
EU Taxonomy vs SFDR: Scope, KPIs, and Evidence
Compare the EU Taxonomy and the SFDR link points that appear in Taxonomy materials: activity classification, Article 8 KPIs, product disclosures, data reuse, and evidence limits.