FAQTaxonomyEU

EU Taxonomy Regulation Six environmental objectives

The six environmental objectives in Article 9 are the starting map for EU Taxonomy work: every alignment assessment must connect an economic activity to at least one objective and check harm to the others.

Use this FAQ to avoid mixing the objective list with activity-specific technical screening criteria, delegated-act details, or unsupported sustainability claims.

Author
Sorena AI
Published
May 9, 2026
Updated
May 27, 2026
Questions
4

Structured answer sets in this page tree.

Primary sources
4

Cited legal and guidance references.

Publication metadata
Sorena AI
Published May 9, 2026
Updated May 27, 2026
Overview

Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 sets the six environmental objectives for the EU Taxonomy. They are not optional labels. They define the objective map used when teams assess substantial contribution, do no significant harm, minimum safeguards, technical screening criteria, and Article 8 disclosures where those disclosures apply.

Search this module

Find a question or answer quickly

4 of 4 questions
Question 1

What are the six environmental objectives under the EU Taxonomy?

The six environmental objectives are the Article 9 objectives in the Taxonomy Regulation. Use the exact legal wording when building a control, disclosure, data model, or customer-facing explanation.

The objectives are not the same thing as Taxonomy alignment. An activity still needs to satisfy the Article 3 conditions: substantial contribution to one or more objectives, no significant harm to the other objectives, minimum safeguards, and the applicable technical screening criteria.

  • Climate change mitigation.
  • Climate change adaptation.
  • The sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources.
  • The transition to a circular economy.
  • Pollution prevention and control.
  • The protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems.
Citations
Question 2

How should teams use the objectives in an assessment?

Start by mapping the economic activity to the objective it may substantially contribute to. Then check whether the activity causes significant harm to any of the other Article 9 objectives, because the Regulation treats DNSH as a separate condition from substantial contribution.

The assessment should stay activity-specific. A business line, product, project, or supplier category should not be described as Taxonomy-aligned just because it relates to one of the six objectives; the applicable technical screening criteria still decide the contribution and DNSH tests.

  • Identify the economic activity being assessed and the objective or objectives it may substantially contribute to.
  • Find the applicable technical screening criteria in the relevant delegated act before making an alignment statement.
  • Record the DNSH check against the other environmental objectives, including life-cycle considerations where the criteria require them.
  • Confirm minimum safeguards separately; they are part of Article 3 and are not replaced by environmental evidence.
Citations
Question 3

Which delegated acts relate to the six objectives?

The Climate Delegated Act sets technical screening criteria for activities that can substantially contribute to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation. The Environmental Delegated Act addresses the four non-climate objectives: water and marine resources, circular economy, pollution prevention and control, and biodiversity and ecosystems.

Teams should therefore avoid using the six-objective list as a shortcut for criteria selection. The right next step is to match the activity description to the relevant delegated-act section and then assess the criteria that apply to that activity.

  • Climate objectives: climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation.
  • Non-climate objectives: water and marine resources, circular economy, pollution prevention and control, biodiversity and ecosystems.
  • Technical screening criteria can differ even where activity descriptions look similar across delegated acts.
  • Commission FAQ material is useful for interpretation, but the underlying regulation and delegated acts remain the sources to cite for criteria.
Citations
Question 4

What evidence should teams keep for the objective mapping?

Keep evidence that lets a reviewer trace the path from the activity to the objective, the delegated-act criteria, the DNSH checks, and the final statement. A generic sustainability narrative is not enough for Taxonomy work.

For Article 8 reporting, the Regulation links disclosures to how and to what extent an undertaking's activities are associated with economic activities that qualify as environmentally sustainable under Articles 3 and 9. That makes objective mapping a disclosure input, not just a policy exercise.

  • Activity description and boundary used for the assessment.
  • Article 9 objective or objectives selected for substantial-contribution review.
  • Delegated-act section and technical screening criteria used.
  • DNSH evidence for the other Article 9 objectives.
  • Minimum-safeguards evidence or unresolved-safeguards note.
  • Disclosure or public-claim text that depends on the assessment.
Citations
Recommended next step

Turn EU Taxonomy guidance into an evidence workflow

Use this EU Taxonomy guide to connect Article 9 objective mapping, delegated-act criteria, DNSH checks, minimum safeguards, and evidence records before teams publish, report, or approve Taxonomy claims.

Primary sources

References and citations

eur-lex.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Climate Delegated Act source for climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation technical screening criteria.
"climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation"
finance.ec.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Commission FAQ page describing technical clarifications for the Climate and Environmental Delegated Acts, DNSH criteria, and reporting obligations.
"technical clarifications on the application"
eur-lex.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Article 19 requires technical screening criteria to facilitate verification and take life-cycle impacts into account.
"facilitates the verification of their compliance"
Related guides

Explore more topics

DNSH Appendix C under the EU Taxonomy: chemicals evidence FAQ
Practical FAQ on EU Taxonomy DNSH Appendix C chemicals criteria, including SVHCs, CLP hazard classes, the 0.1% w/w threshold, suitable alternatives, and controlled conditions evidence.
EU Taxonomy 2026 simplification: what should teams do?
source-linked FAQ on EU Taxonomy 2026 simplification, Regulation (EU) 2026/73, Article 8 reporting, DNSH evidence, and limits on unsupported claims.
EU Taxonomy Activity Eligibility Workflow
Build an EU Taxonomy activity eligibility workflow that maps economic activities to delegated-act descriptions before alignment, DNSH, and Article 8 KPI reporting.
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 source-linked 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
source-linked 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
source-linked 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
source-linked 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
source-linked EU Taxonomy calendar for Article 8 reporting phases, environmental objective application dates, delegated-act updates, 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
source-linked guide to EU Taxonomy DNSH and minimum safeguards: Article 3 alignment gates, Article 17 significant harm, Article 18 safeguards, evidence records, and KPI controls.
EU Taxonomy DNSH Appendix C: chemicals evidence guide
source-linked guide to EU Taxonomy DNSH Appendix C chemicals checks, including SVHC thresholds, alternatives, controlled conditions, 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
source-linked guide to EU Taxonomy Article 8 financial undertaking KPIs, including GAR, asset manager KPIs, investment firm KPIs, insurance KPIs, exclusions, and reporting evidence.
EU Taxonomy GAR KPI workflow for credit institutions
source-linked workflow for preparing EU Taxonomy Green Asset Ratio (GAR) KPI disclosures under Article 8 and the Disclosures Delegated Act.
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
Understand where EU Taxonomy penalty exposure starts: Article 22 measures and penalties for Articles 5, 6, and 7 financial product disclosures, with practical evidence controls.
EU Taxonomy Regulation Checklist for Eligibility and Alignment
A source-linked 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 CSRD sustainability reporting scope, evidence, KPIs, assurance, and reuse limits using official EU Taxonomy sources.
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.