EU TaxonomyDNSH Appendix CChemicals

EU Taxonomy DNSH Appendix C

This page helps turn chemicals restrictions into a narrow, cited EU Taxonomy evidence check.

It applies the replacement text in Regulation (EU) 2026/73: activity-specific screening across six substance groups, listed legal exemptions, and documented handling of the point (f) exception.

Author
Sorena AI
Published
May 9, 2026
Updated
Oct 15, 2026
Overview

is the generic EU Taxonomy DNSH criterion for pollution prevention and control regarding chemicals. It applies only when an activity's technical screening criteria point to it. For assessments from 1 January 2026, use the replacement text in Regulation (EU) 2026/73, not the wider hazard-class paragraph that appeared after point (f) in the earlier version.

Section 1

What does DNSH Appendix C cover?

applies only when the relevant EU Taxonomy technical screening criteria for an activity require compliance with Appendix C. The first step is therefore to identify the activity, assessed product or process, reporting period, applicable delegated-act section, and whether the pollution-prevention DNSH row points to Appendix C.

REACH is the EU Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. RoHS refers to Directive 2011/65/EU on restricting hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. CLP is Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; these names identify the separate chemicals rules referenced in the screening below.

The current bars the activity from leading to the manufacture, placing on the market, or use of six groups: listed persistent organic pollutants, except substances present as an unintentional trace contaminant; mercury and mercury compounds, mixtures, and mercury-added products; listed ozone-depleting substances subject to stated exceptions; RoHS Annex II substances subject to listed exemptions; REACH Annex XVII substances outside the conditions in that annex; and specified candidate-list substances above 0.1% weight by weight unless the point (f) exception is documented.

  • Confirm that the activity is covered by EU Taxonomy technical screening criteria before using .
  • Check whether the activity's pollution-prevention DNSH criterion expressly requires compliance.
  • Define the assessed object and pathway: substance, mixture, article, manufacture, placing on the market, or use.
  • Record the exact delegated-act section, point, linked chemicals law, applicable exemption or threshold, and evidence used.
  • Check all six points (a) to (f); the 0.1% threshold belongs only to point (f), not to every listed substance group.
Section 2

What is the Appendix C substance test?

Point (f) covers substances on their own, in mixtures, or in an article above 0.1% weight by weight when they meet the REACH Article 57 criteria and have been identified under Article 59(1) for at least 18 months. An operator may rely on the exception only after assessing and documenting both that no suitable alternative substance or technology is available on the market and that the substance is used under controlled conditions.

Regulation (EU) 2026/73 removed the separate paragraph that had extended a similar screen to other CLP hazard classes or categories. Do not continue that deleted Taxonomy screen as though still required it. Separate duties under REACH, CLP, product law, permits, or other chemicals rules may still apply independently.

  • For point (f), screen substances on their own, in mixtures, or in an article for concentrations above 0.1% weight by weight.
  • Verify all point (f) elements: Article 57 criteria, Article 59(1) identification, at least 18 months on the candidate list, concentration above 0.1% weight by weight, and the assessed object.
  • If relying on an exception, keep evidence for both limbs: no suitable alternatives on the market and controlled conditions.
  • Do not describe an activity as Taxonomy-aligned until the conclusion is tied back to the full activity-level alignment assessment.
Section 3

Which evidence makes an Appendix C conclusion reviewable?

The file should let a reviewer trace the conclusion from the activity and delegated-act section to the chemical inventory, point-by-point screen, concentration evidence, alternatives assessment, controlled-conditions evidence, and final approval.

The Taxonomy Regulation requires undertakings in scope of Article 8 disclosure to report how and to what extent their activities are associated with environmentally sustainable activities. evidence should therefore be maintained in a form that supports the broader Taxonomy-alignment and KPI process, without turning an Appendix C page into a KPI calculator.

  • Activity mapping and delegated-act section that triggered .
  • Bill of materials, supplier declarations, safety data sheets, or equivalent chemical inventory used for the assessment.
  • Point-by-point screening record for persistent organic pollutants, mercury, ozone-depleting substances, RoHS substances, REACH restrictions, and point (f) candidate-list substances.
  • For point (f), a substance record showing the Article 57 basis, Article 59(1) identification date, 18-month test, assessed object, and concentration.
  • Concentration evidence for the 0.1% weight-by-weight threshold where that threshold is relevant.
  • Alternatives assessment and controlled-conditions evidence for any exception relied on.
  • Approval record that states whether is passed, failed, not applicable because the activity criteria do not refer to it, or unresolved pending named supplier, composition, concentration, alternatives, or controlled-conditions evidence.
Recommended next step

Turn Appendix C into an evidence record

This guide helps connect the delegated-act trigger, chemical evidence, alternatives assessment, controlled conditions, and approval record before making an EU Taxonomy alignment claim.

Section 4

Where do teams usually overstate Appendix C?

Treating as a pass/fail label for the whole company overstates its effect. The check belongs to a specific Taxonomy activity and the manufacture, placing on the market, or use covered by the applicable criterion.

Another risk is applying the 0.1% point (f) threshold to every category. Points (a) to (e) use their own linked legal lists, conditions, and exemptions. A third risk is keeping the deleted CLP hazard-class paragraph in a 2026 checklist because it appeared in the 2023 version.

  • Do not apply to activities whose technical screening criteria do not point to Appendix C.
  • Do not claim alignment from eligibility alone; is only one part of the broader alignment chain.
  • Do not publish an exception unless the alternatives assessment and controlled-conditions evidence are both documented.
  • Do not use an conclusion from one product, supplier, or activity as evidence for another without checking the actual substances and threshold.
  • Do not treat compliance with as proof that separate EU or national chemicals duties are satisfied.
Section 5

What should teams do next?

Create an decision record for each activity where the delegated act requires it. Keep the record narrow enough that it can be reviewed: activity, section, assessed item, substances checked, threshold result, exception evidence, owner, approval, and unresolved evidence requests.

If supplier or product evidence is incomplete, mark the conclusion as unresolved. Do not substitute a policy statement or publish an unsupported alignment claim.

  • Name the Taxonomy activity and the delegated-act section before requesting chemical evidence.
  • Ask suppliers for evidence that supports the specific threshold and classification questions.
  • Keep exception evidence separate from ordinary screening evidence so reviewers can see why it was used.
  • Review records when candidate-list status or the 18-month period changes, a linked chemicals list or exemption changes, supplier inputs or product composition changes, controlled conditions or available alternatives change, or delegated-act text changes.
Primary sources

References and citations

eur-lex.europa.eu6 citations
Referenced sections
  • Current binding replacement of Appendix C in the Climate and Environmental Delegated Acts, applicable from 1 January 2026.
  • Binding replacement of Appendix C in Delegated Regulations (EU) 2021/2139 and (EU) 2023/2486, applying from 1 January 2026.
  • Current binding point (f), including the 0.1% weight-by-weight threshold, Article 57 and Article 59(1) conditions, 18-month period, and documented exception.
Show 3 more
  • Current official text for the six Appendix C groups and the operator's documented point (f) exception.
  • Current binding Appendix C text, including the distinct treatment of points (a) to (e) and the documented point (f) exception.
  • Current Appendix C source used to define the point-by-point evidence record and point (f) exception.
eur-lex.europa.eu5 citations
Referenced sections
  • Primary EU Taxonomy Regulation source for environmentally sustainable activity criteria, DNSH, minimum safeguards, and Article 8 disclosure.
  • Primary regulation defining Taxonomy alignment and the role of technical screening criteria.
  • Primary regulation requiring substantial contribution, no significant harm, minimum safeguards, and technical screening criteria for alignment.
Show 2 more
  • Article 8 source for undertaking disclosures on how and to what extent activities are associated with environmentally sustainable activities.
  • Primary source for the overall criteria an economic activity must meet to qualify as environmentally sustainable.
"framework to facilitate sustainable investment"
More quoted passages
"technical screening criteria for determining whether an economic activity"
"qualifies as environmentally sustainable"
"how and to what extent the undertaking’s activities are associated"
"environmentally sustainable"
finance.ec.europa.eu3 citations
Referenced sections
  • European Commission FAQ publication describing clarifications on technical screening criteria, generic DNSH criteria, and reporting obligations.
  • Commission FAQ source that describes technical clarifications on generic DNSH criteria and reporting obligations.
  • Commission source describing technical clarifications for generic DNSH criteria and related reporting obligations.
"generic ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) criteria"
More quoted passages
"technical clarifications on the application of the EU taxonomy"
Show all related guides (37)

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 EU Taxonomy activity tests and Article 8 KPIs with SFDR entity and product disclosures, evidence, publication channels, and limits on data reuse.

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 Article 8 Scope FAQ

Practical 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.