TaxonomyRequirementsEU

EU Taxonomy Regulation Requirements

This page helps separate EU Taxonomy eligibility from alignment, identify the Article 8 reporting outputs, and build an evidence file for each activity.

The guide focuses on the requirements visible in the Taxonomy Regulation, the Disclosures Delegated Act, and Commission implementation notices.

Author
Sorena AI
Published
May 9, 2026
Updated
Jul 24, 2026
Sections
6

Structured answer sets in this page tree.

Primary sources
7

Cited legal and guidance references.

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

The classifies environmentally sustainable economic activities. Start with the activity: confirm whether a Taxonomy delegated act describes it, then test substantial contribution, do-no-significant-harm criteria, minimum safeguards, and the disclosure KPI that will report the result.

Section 1

What are the core EU Taxonomy Regulation requirements?

of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 is the central alignment test. An economic activity qualifies as environmentally sustainable only when it contributes substantially to at least one of the six environmental objectives, does not significantly harm the other objectives, is carried out in compliance with Article 18 minimum safeguards, and meets the applicable technical screening criteria.

The six objectives are climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention and control, and protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems. Teams should keep the objective selection separate from the activity mapping, because the same business line may contain eligible, non-eligible, aligned, and non-aligned activity portions.

  • Start with the legal entity and reporting boundary that will disclose Taxonomy information.
  • Map each revenue, CapEx, OpEx, exposure, investment, or underwriting item to a described economic activity in the relevant delegated act.
  • Record whether the activity is Taxonomy-eligible before testing whether it is Taxonomy-aligned.
  • For alignment, document substantial contribution, DNSH, minimum safeguards, and all activity-specific technical screening criteria.
  • Keep the final classification linked to the KPI template or disclosure table where it will appear.
Section 2

How do eligibility and alignment differ?

Eligibility is a coverage test. Under the Disclosures Delegated Act, a Taxonomy-eligible economic activity is one that is described in delegated acts adopted under Articles 10 to 15 of the Taxonomy Regulation, regardless of whether it meets the technical screening criteria.

Alignment is a performance and safeguards test. The same delegated act defines a Taxonomy-aligned economic activity as one that complies with of the Taxonomy Regulation. The Commission notice on the Climate Delegated Act also states that substantial contribution criteria, DNSH criteria, and Article 18 minimum safeguards all have to be met for an activity to be considered Taxonomy-aligned.

  • Do not call an activity aligned merely because the activity name appears in a delegated act.
  • Keep a cited activity description next to the internal account, asset, project, product, loan, or exposure being classified.
  • Use a separate field for non-eligible activity so non-coverage is not confused with failed alignment.
  • When a criterion is not relevant to the actual activity, keep the explanation with the disclosure evidence rather than deleting the criterion from the assessment.
  • Where a delegated act is amended, re-test affected activities against the amended technical screening criteria before repeating prior-year alignment language.
Section 3

Which Article 8 disclosures and KPIs must be prepared?

Article 8 applies to undertakings required to publish sustainability information under Articles 19a or 29a of Directive 2013/34/EU. It requires disclosure of how and to what extent their activities are associated with environmentally sustainable economic activities. The Disclosures Delegated Act specifies the content, presentation, methodology, and templates.

For non-financial undertakings, the core KPIs are turnover, capital expenditure, and operating expenditure. Financial undertakings use sector-specific KPIs, including GAR for credit institutions. Regulation (EU) 2026/73 applies from 1 January 2026 and revises the templates, non-materiality options, financial-undertaking denominator rules, and specified application dates.

  • Non-financial undertakings should reconcile Taxonomy turnover, CapEx, and OpEx figures to the financial reporting population used for Article 8 disclosure.
  • Credit institutions should preserve GAR numerator, denominator, exclusion, and exposure-type decisions rather than only the final percentage.
  • Asset managers, investment firms, insurers, and reinsurers should use the applicable Disclosures Delegated Act annex and keep the calculation method beside the output table.
  • Financial-undertaking disclosures should include qualitative information on KPI scope, data sources, limitations, and changes in Taxonomy-aligned activity over time.
  • Avoid mixing voluntary Taxonomy information with mandatory Article 8 tables unless the disclosure clearly distinguishes the basis for each number.
  • If a permitted 10% non-materiality option is used, leave the affected amounts in the denominator, report them separately as non-material, and retain the calculation supporting the decision.
  • A financial undertaking using the conditional opt-out through 31 December 2027 must include the prescribed statement and make no claim that its activities are associated with Taxonomy-aligned activities.
Section 4

What evidence should support an alignment conclusion?

The evidence file should let a reviewer move from the delegated-act activity description to the internal facts and then to the KPI line item. It should show why the activity is eligible, which environmental objective is used for substantial contribution, how each DNSH criterion was tested, and how minimum safeguards were assessed.

Commission guidance says checking technical screening criteria requires collecting and assessing relevant information. Where the Climate Delegated Act requires verification for certain activities, the external verifier report constitutes evidence of compliance with those criteria.

  • Activity map with delegated-act reference, internal system field, reporting unit, and owner.
  • Eligibility decision explaining why the activity is described in a Taxonomy delegated act or why it is non-eligible.
  • Substantial contribution worksheet for the selected environmental objective and activity-specific threshold or condition.
  • DNSH checklist covering every applicable objective, including Appendix A, C, or D evidence where referenced by the delegated act.
  • Minimum safeguards assessment against Article 18 procedures and the OECD, UNGP, ILO, and International Bill of Human Rights references.
  • KPI workbook showing turnover, CapEx, OpEx, GAR, investment, fee, commission, underwriting, or other applicable calculation logic.
  • Reviewer sign-off, source versions, amendment checks, and unresolved assumptions retained with the reporting year evidence.
Recommended next step

Turn EU Taxonomy requirements into reportable evidence

This EU Taxonomy guide helps connect activity mapping, alignment tests, Article 8 KPI calculations, owners, and cited evidence before public reporting.

Section 5

Where do teams usually make EU Taxonomy requirement mistakes?

The most common failure pattern is collapsing several separate requirements into one label. A page, report, or dashboard may say an activity is sustainable even though the evidence only proves that the activity is eligible, or it may calculate a KPI without preserving the DNSH and minimum-safeguards evidence that supports the aligned numerator.

Another risk is stale criteria. Regulation (EU) 2026/73 replaced specified chemicals DNSH criteria from 1 January 2026, while the Commission's March 2026 proposals to revise wider climate and environmental screening criteria remain draft initiatives unless and until adopted and published. Prior-year conclusions should be reused only after checking the applicable act and reporting period.

  • Do not reuse an eligibility conclusion as an alignment conclusion.
  • Do not publish a single blended percentage without preserving the activity-level classification and KPI methodology behind it.
  • Do not cite Platform or TEG reports as binding law; label them as advisory context when used.
  • Do not treat missing data as neutral: either explain the limitation under the applicable disclosure method or exclude/narrow the claim.
  • Do not assume an activity outside the EU is aligned without checking how the criteria refer to EU law, international standards, or equivalent third-country law.
  • Do not implement a consultation draft or planned delegated act as if it were binding.
Section 6

What should teams do next?

Create one maintained requirements register for the reporting year. Each row should hold the entity, activity, delegated-act source, eligibility decision, alignment decision, KPI output, evidence owner, reviewer, and source version. This keeps Article 8 disclosure work connected to the underlying legal tests.

Use the Commission portal and delegated-acts page to monitor current delegated acts and notices, but do not update public Taxonomy claims until the affected activities, criteria, and KPI templates have been rechecked.

  • Build a Taxonomy activity inventory before drafting disclosure wording.
  • Assign separate owners for activity mapping, technical screening criteria, DNSH, minimum safeguards, and KPI calculations.
  • Store source URLs with the evidence record so reviewers can verify the exact legal or guidance basis used.
  • Schedule an amendment check before each reporting cycle and whenever a relevant delegated act or Commission notice changes.
Primary sources

References and citations

eur-lex.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Binding source for Article 8 changes applying from 1 January 2026, including 10% non-materiality options, revised financial-undertaking rules, simplified templates, the temporary opt-out, and specified 2028 KPI application dates.
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 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 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 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.