EU TaxonomyEvidence

EU Taxonomy Screening criteria and documentation

Alignment is a documentation problem before it's a math problem.

Build a criteria-by-criteria evidence pack that ties directly to KPI numerators.

Back to main artifact Review sources

Author

Sorena AI

Published

Feb 21, 2026

Updated

Feb 21, 2026

Sections

Structured answer sets in this page tree.

Primary sources

Cited legal and guidance references.

Publication metadata

Sorena AI

Published Feb 21, 2026

Updated Feb 21, 2026

Overview

Technical screening criteria (TSC) are the operational core of EU Taxonomy alignment. If you cannot show criterion-by-criterion evidence - including DNSH and minimum safeguards - you don't have an alignment claim you can defend. This page describes an evidence model that is structured, versioned, and reproducible.

Section 1

Start with the activity boundary (or your evidence will not match your claim)

Before reading criteria, define the activity boundary: what assets/sites/projects are covered, and how that maps to revenue/CapEx/OpEx lines.

Most assurance issues start here: evidence exists, but it covers a different boundary than the disclosed activity.

Activity definition: map your activity to the delegated act definition with a written rationale
Boundary statement: what's included/excluded (sites, assets, subsidiaries, time period)
Data sources: which systems produce the metrics that will support criteria checks
Owner: who is accountable for maintaining the activity evidence pack

Recommended next step

Use EU Taxonomy Screening criteria and documentation as a cited research workflow

Research Copilot can take EU Taxonomy Screening criteria and documentation from reusing this material inside a governed evidence system to a reusable workflow inside Sorena. Teams working on EU Taxonomy can keep owners, evidence, and next steps aligned without copying this guide into separate documents.

Research workflow

Open Research Copilot for EU Taxonomy Screening criteria and documentation

Start from EU Taxonomy Screening criteria and documentation and answer scope, timing, and interpretation questions with cited outputs.

Explore next step

Talk to Sorena

Talk through EU Taxonomy

Review your current process, evidence gaps, and next steps for EU Taxonomy Screening criteria and documentation.

Explore next step

Section 2

Build a criteria mapping file (the single source of truth)

For each eligible activity, create a criteria mapping file: every criterion has a pass/fail, the metric/value, and an evidence pointer.

This file is the bridge between operations and disclosure: it explains why a KPI numerator component is aligned.

Substantial contribution: criterion-by-criterion checks and evidence
DNSH: criterion-by-criterion checks across other objectives (as defined for the activity)
Minimum safeguards: due diligence evidence baseline and coverage statement
Evidence pointers: direct links/paths to documents (assessments, permits, monitoring, policies)
Versioning: delegated act version and reporting year recorded on the mapping file

Section 3

Evidence pack structure (what to store per activity)

Store evidence in a stable structure so you can answer questions fast. Avoid ad-hoc attachments - use an evidence vault with an index.

Evidence should be attributable (owner + timestamp), complete (covers the boundary), and durable (can be retrieved later).

Activity summary: boundary, rationale, and criteria version used
Metrics: source system extracts and calculation notes
Assessments and permits: technical reports, compliance permits, independent reviews where relevant
Monitoring: ongoing performance data for criteria that require continuous compliance
Safeguards: due diligence process docs, grievance mechanisms, remediation tracking

Section 4

Link evidence to KPIs (so Article 8 reporting stays defensible)

The evidence model should connect directly to KPI workbook inputs: aligned numerator components must be traceable to aligned activities and their evidence packs.

Build the link explicitly: KPI line items should reference activity IDs and evidence pack locations.

KPI workbook references activity IDs (not informal names)
Each numerator component has a criteria mapping reference and evidence pack pointer
Reconciliations: denominators tie to audited numbers and consolidation rules
Methodology notes: estimates/proxies policy and limitation disclosures stay consistent

Primary sources