Eligibility is a scope check. Alignment is a compliance claim.
Use this page to keep your KPI numerators defensible and your disclosures precise.
Structured answer sets in this page tree.
Cited legal and guidance references.
This distinction drives many taxonomy reporting failures. Eligibility answers whether the activity is covered by Taxonomy criteria. Alignment answers whether it meets the technical screening criteria, DNSH, and minimum safeguards, and whether you can prove it. If you report eligibility as alignment, you inflate aligned KPIs and create assurance risk.
Eligibility: the activity matches a Taxonomy activity definition in the delegated acts. You cannot be aligned if you are not eligible.
Alignment: the eligible activity meets (a) substantial contribution criteria, (b) DNSH criteria, (c) minimum safeguards, and (d) any other conditions defined in the technical screening criteria.
The disclosures delegated act phases in reporting. Early disclosures emphasize taxonomy-eligible proportions; later disclosures require aligned KPIs and accompanying information.
If you get this distinction wrong, you will either under-report alignment (missing opportunities) or over-report alignment (assurance and credibility risk).
Research Copilot can take EU Taxonomy Eligibility vs alignment from how this topic compares with adjacent regulations or standards 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.
Start from EU Taxonomy Eligibility vs alignment and answer scope, timing, and interpretation questions with cited outputs.
Review your current process, evidence gaps, and next steps for EU Taxonomy Eligibility vs alignment.
Use this decision table to standardize language across finance, sustainability, and assurance. The goal is to make claims precise and evidence-backed.
Tip: maintain this as a controlled register with links to the evidence pack for each activity.