TaxonomyScreening criteriaEU

EU Taxonomy Regulation Screening Criteria and Documentation

Build a cited evidence file for EU Taxonomy eligibility, alignment, , minimum safeguards, and Article 8 KPI disclosures.

This guide focuses on what to document before calling an economic activity Taxonomy-aligned, and where unsupported or activity-specific claims should stay out of public reporting.

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

EU Taxonomy screening starts with the exact economic activity and the delegated-act version that applies to the reporting year. Eligibility means the activity is described in a delegated act. Alignment requires all Article 3 conditions: substantial contribution, no significant harm to the other environmental objectives, minimum safeguards, and compliance with the applicable . Failure to support one required criterion prevents an aligned claim.

Section 1

Start with eligibility before testing alignment

Eligibility is a classification step: identify whether the activity is described in the Taxonomy delegated acts. The Article 8 Disclosures Delegated Act defines a Taxonomy-eligible economic activity as one described in delegated acts, regardless of whether it meets any or all of the .

Alignment is a stricter conclusion. The Taxonomy Regulation requires an aligned activity to contribute substantially to at least one environmental objective, avoid significant harm to the other objectives, meet minimum safeguards, and comply with the Commission's .

  • Record the activity name, delegated act, annex, section, and the text used to match the business activity.
  • Keep eligibility separate from alignment in the workbook and in public language.
  • Do not treat a NACE code, green revenue label, or project description as sufficient proof of alignment.
  • If an activity is not described in the delegated acts, document it as non-eligible unless another applicable Taxonomy delegated act identifies the activity.
Section 2

Document the technical screening criteria claim

For each eligible activity, the evidence file should quote or reference the exact substantial-contribution criteria and each criterion that applies to the activity. The Taxonomy Regulation says should identify relevant contributions, specify minimum requirements to avoid significant harm, be quantitative with thresholds where possible and otherwise qualitative, and facilitate verification of compliance.

The Commission notice narrows what checking compliance means in practice: collect and assess relevant information to determine whether the activity fulfils the conditions in the . Where a criterion is not relevant to the specific activity, the disclosure should explain why the element is not involved rather than silently omitting it.

  • Create one row per activity and environmental objective tested.
  • Capture the substantial-contribution criterion, each criterion, and the evidence owner for the underlying data.
  • Flag quantitative thresholds separately from qualitative criteria so reviewers can see where measurement, permits, certificates, or expert judgement were used.
  • Where the delegated act requires external verification, retain the verifier report or competent-authority evidence as the compliance record.
  • Where information depends on industry benchmarks or case-by-case assessment, keep the explanation and any independent third-party opinion with the disclosure support.
Section 3

Keep DNSH and minimum safeguards visible

A substantial-contribution result is not enough for alignment. Article 3 requires and minimum safeguards alongside , and the Commission notice states that all substantial-contribution criteria, DNSH criteria, and minimum safeguards must be met for an activity to be considered Taxonomy-aligned.

Minimum safeguards documentation should point to procedures that align the undertaking's activity with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, including the ILO fundamental principles and rights identified in Article 18.

  • Keep evidence in the same activity record as the substantial-contribution test.
  • Do not publish alignment language when any criterion is untested, unsupported, or explained only by broad policy language.
  • Document minimum-safeguards procedures separately from environmental performance metrics.
  • When a criterion refers to an appendix or another EU legal requirement, cite that criterion rather than paraphrasing from memory.
  • Record open items as unresolved evidence gaps, not as positive alignment conclusions.
Section 4

Connect criteria evidence to Article 8 disclosures

Article 8 requires undertakings in scope to disclose how and to what extent their activities are associated with environmentally sustainable economic activities. For non-financial undertakings, the Regulation identifies the proportions of turnover, capital expenditure, and operating expenditure linked to qualifying activities.

The Disclosures Delegated Act turns that into a documentation task: non-financial undertakings disclose the specified information in tabular form using templates, calculate turnover, CapEx, and OpEx KPIs, explain how amounts were determined and allocated, and avoid double counting across activities and objectives.

  • Link every KPI numerator entry back to an activity-level eligibility and alignment assessment.
  • Keep turnover, CapEx, and OpEx calculations traceable to the accounting line items and allocation basis used.
  • Document any CapEx plan support separately from activities already meeting the criteria.
  • Include the explanation for avoiding double counting when the same activity contributes to more than one environmental objective.
  • Use the delegated-act templates for presentation instead of inventing a bespoke KPI table.
Recommended next step

Turn Taxonomy screening into audit-ready evidence

This EU Taxonomy guide helps map each activity to its delegated-act criteria, DNSH checks, minimum safeguards, KPI calculations, and evidence gaps before publishing alignment claims.

Section 5

Review criteria changes before reusing last year's file

Screening criteria are not static. Regulation (EU) 2026/73 amended parts of the Climate and Environmental Delegated Acts, including pollution-prevention criteria, and applies from 1 January 2026. An undertaking with a financial year starting in 2025 may instead use the delegated acts as they stood on 31 December 2025.

Carry the delegated-act version, reporting-year choice, assessment date, and reason each prior evidence item remains valid. Test every applicable criterion in the chosen version: failure to demonstrate even one required criterion means the activity cannot be reported as Taxonomy-aligned.

  • Record the delegated act and annex version used for each activity assessment.
  • For a financial year starting in 2025, record whether the undertaking uses the amended criteria applying from 1 January 2026 or the criteria in force on 31 December 2025.
  • Before rolling forward evidence, check whether the activity description, substantial-contribution criterion, criterion, or template changed.
  • Do not reuse sector thresholds across activities; copy only criteria that are directly tied to the activity being assessed.
  • If a criterion changed and the current evidence no longer proves compliance, mark the item as a gap until it is retested.
Primary sources

References and citations

eur-lex.europa.eu6 citations
Referenced sections
  • Primary legal source for the Article 3 alignment test, Article 8 disclosures, Article 18 minimum safeguards, and Article 19 screening-criteria requirements.
  • Article 3 supplies the four-part test for an economic activity to qualify as environmentally sustainable.
  • Article 19 describes how technical screening criteria should be designed, including verification-oriented criteria.
Show 3 more
  • Article 18 defines minimum safeguards by reference to OECD, UN Guiding Principles, ILO principles, and the International Bill of Human Rights.
  • Article 8 is the source for disclosing how and to what extent activities are associated with environmentally sustainable economic activities.
  • Article 19 requires regular review and possible amendment of technical screening criteria.
"Criteria for environmentally sustainable economic activities"
More quoted passages
"complies with technical screening criteria"
"facilitates the verification of their compliance"
"procedures implemented by an undertaking"
"how and to what extent"
"regularly review the technical screening criteria"
eur-lex.europa.eu4 citations
Referenced sections
  • Commission FAQ source for practical interpretation of technical screening criteria, DNSH checks, documentary evidence, verification, and criteria changes.
  • Explains that checking TSC compliance requires collecting and assessing relevant information for substantial contribution and DNSH and that an external verifier's report is evidence where the delegated act requires verification.
  • Confirms that substantial-contribution criteria, DNSH, and minimum safeguards all have to be met for alignment.
Show 1 more
  • Explains that TSC may be updated and could become stricter over time.
"What documentary evidence could support"
More quoted passages
"collection and assessment of relevant information"
"have to be met"
"could become stricter over time"
eur-lex.europa.eu3 citations
Referenced sections
  • Source for Article 8 disclosure templates, Taxonomy-eligible activity definition, and turnover, CapEx, and OpEx KPI documentation requirements.
  • Defines Taxonomy-eligible activity as an activity described in delegated acts, irrespective of whether all criteria are met.
  • Requires non-financial undertaking disclosures to use the delegated-act templates and explain how turnover, CapEx, and OpEx were determined and allocated.
"KPIs OF NON-FINANCIAL UNDERTAKINGS"
More quoted passages
"irrespective of whether that economic activity meets"
"determined and allocated to the numerator"
eur-lex.europa.eu2 citations
Referenced sections
  • Current binding amendment simplifying selected DNSH criteria and setting the applicable reporting-year transition.
  • Binding amendments to Delegated Regulations (EU) 2021/2139 and 2023/2486, application from 1 January 2026, and the option to use the criteria in force on 31 December 2025 for a financial year starting in 2025.
finance.ec.europa.eu2 citations
Referenced sections
  • Technical Expert Group report explaining the Taxonomy screening model, minimum safeguards, and the distinction between covered activities and alignment claims.
  • Explains the practical screening logic: substantial contribution, DNSH, and minimum safeguards together define Taxonomy alignment.
"technical screening criteria"
More quoted passages
"meet minimum safeguards"
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 DNSH Appendix C: chemicals evidence guide

Current EU Taxonomy Appendix C chemicals guide covering the 2026 replacement criteria, listed substances, legal exemptions, the candidate-list substance 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 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 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.