| Scope and covered activity | Eligibility starts with the economic activity description in the delegated acts adopted under the Taxonomy Regulation. Match the activity itself, not just a company label or NACE sector. | Alignment starts from the eligible activity and then tests whether that activity qualifies as environmentally sustainable under Article 3 and the applicable technical screening criteria. | Do not describe a company, product line, or investment as aligned just because one of its activities is eligible; document the exact activity boundary first. |
|---|
| Who must act | Article 8 reporting applies to undertakings required to publish non-financial information under Articles 19a or 29a of Directive 2013/34/EU. Finance, sustainability, and business data owners usually need to map activities and KPIs. | The same reporting population may need alignment evidence, but the work expands to owners who can prove screening criteria, DNSH controls, safeguards processes, and activity-level data. | Assign eligibility mapping to reporting and business owners, then assign alignment testing to the teams that control technical, environmental, human-rights, and KPI evidence. |
|---|
| Trigger or threshold | The classification test is whether the activity is described in the delegated acts. Eligibility does not depend on meeting technical screening criteria and gives no indication of sustainability. Separately, the 2026 Article 8 rules permit KPI-specific assessment omissions: for non-financial undertakings, the cumulative omitted turnover, CapEx, or material OpEx must be below 10% of the corresponding KPI denominator and must be reported as non-material. | The trigger is the Article 3 sustainability test: substantial contribution to one or more Article 9 objectives, no significant harm to the other objectives, minimum safeguards, and compliance with technical screening criteria. | Treat eligibility as the entry gate for reporting and alignment as the claim gate for environmentally sustainable activity. |
|---|
| Core reporting obligation | For non-financial undertakings, eligibility reporting covers turnover, CapEx, and OpEx. Under the 2026 amendments, amounts omitted through a materiality option are reported separately as non-material, not as non-eligible. If OpEx is not material to the business model, the undertaking may omit the full OpEx assessment only after disclosing the denominator and explaining the conclusion. Financial undertakings have separate KPI-specific omission rules. | Alignment reporting shows the share of activities or financing associated with environmentally sustainable economic activities, using the Disclosures Delegated Act methodology and templates where applicable. | Build KPI tables so eligible, non-eligible, eligible-but-not-aligned, and aligned amounts cannot be collapsed into one sustainability number. |
|---|
| Evidence and records | Eligibility evidence should show the activity description used, the delegated act source, the reporting boundary, the KPI denominator, and any voluntary estimate clearly separated from mandatory disclosure. | Alignment evidence should add proof for substantial contribution, DNSH, minimum safeguards, and each applicable technical screening criterion, with activity-level traceability. | Keep an audit trail from source provision to activity mapping, KPI calculation, alignment test, reviewer sign-off, and final wording. |
|---|
| Timing and cadence | Eligibility reporting began first under Article 10 of the Disclosures Delegated Act: in-scope undertakings reported eligibility from January 2022 for the previous annual reporting period. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/73 applies from 1 January 2026, with an option to use the rules applicable on 31 December 2025 for a financial year beginning during 2025. | Alignment reporting phased in later: non-financial undertakings reported aligned climate activities from 2023 and financial undertakings began the main aligned KPI reporting from 2024. Current work must use the criteria, KPI rules, templates, and transition option applicable to the reporting financial year. | Do not infer that an old eligibility-only report failed alignment. Record the financial year, undertaking type, objective, KPI, and any 2025 transition election before reviewing the result. |
|---|
| Assurance and claim risk | Eligibility risk is mainly overstatement: presenting an activity as sustainable, or using voluntary estimates, when the mandatory disclosure only supports eligible or non-eligible status. | Alignment risk is evidence failure: a public aligned claim is weak if any Article 3 condition, screening criterion, DNSH requirement, or minimum safeguard cannot be supported. | Review public copy, investor materials, and report notes so eligible is not used as a synonym for green, sustainable, or aligned. |
|---|
| Overlap and reuse | Eligibility mapping can feed alignment because it defines the universe of activities that may have potential to align with technical screening criteria. | Alignment can reuse the activity map and KPI base, but it must add the environmental and safeguards evidence required for an environmentally sustainable activity. | Reuse the same activity inventory and KPI owner where possible, but keep the alignment checklist separate until every Article 3 condition is evidenced. |
|---|
| Practical decision rule | Use eligibility when answering: is this activity described in the Taxonomy delegated acts and therefore part of eligible or non-eligible Article 8 reporting? | Use alignment when answering: can this eligible activity be counted or described as environmentally sustainable under the Taxonomy Regulation? | Publish the narrowest accurate statement: eligible means covered by the Taxonomy activity descriptions; aligned means the full Article 3 and delegated-act tests are met. |
|---|