EU Taxonomy Eligibility Checker
Two words carry most of the confusion in EU Taxonomy reporting. Eligible means a delegated act describes your activity — nothing more, and nothing about how green it is. Aligned is a separate test with three further hurdles. And since January 2026 a 10% materiality threshold decides how much of either you actually owe. Seven questions, about a minute, and this tells you where you stand on the first of those.
Eligible means a delegated act describes the activity — an oil refinery can be eligible. Since 2026 an activity under 10% of a KPI need not be assessed at all, but the proportion you excluded must still be disclosed.
Seven questions, about a minute. Eligible asks only whether a delegated act describes your activity — nothing about how green it is. Aligned is a separate test entirely. And since January 2026 a 10% materiality threshold decides how much of either you actually owe.
- The relief has been taken and the disclosure it requires has not been made, and that disclosure is wider than most summaries say. An activity below 10% of turnover, CapEx or OpEx may be omitted from Taxonomy assessment entirely — but Annex I of the Disclosures Delegated Act requires three things back: the PROPORTION treated as non-material, the economic SECTOR those activities sit in, and an EXPLANATION of why they are not material. Taking the exemption and reporting silence swaps one omission for a more conspicuous one, because the template has a line for each of the three.
What would change this verdict
- Eligibility moves when the delegated acts do, not when your business does. An activity that is not described today can be added by an amending act, which makes a previously ineligible undertaking eligible without anything about it changing.
- Materiality is tested per KPI and per year. An activity can be material for CapEx in the year you invest in it and immaterial for turnover in the same year, so the set of activities you must assess is not stable between cycles.
- A material activity is assessed in its ENTIRETY. Where an activity is material for a KPI you cannot carve the awkward part of it out and call that portion non-material — the Commission has published an illustrative example refusing exactly that, for one construction activity carried out across six countries.
Coverage position — each test, where you stand, and the rule
| Test | Your position | The rule |
|---|---|---|
| Article 8 scope | In scope, and reporting alreadyTaxonomy KPIs are requiredopen | Article 8 attaches to undertakings within CSRD sustainability reporting |
| Undertaking type | A non-financial undertakingTurnover, CapEx and OpEx KPIsmet | Financial undertakings report a green asset ratio, not a turnover share |
| Activities named in a delegated act | Yes — in the Climate Delegated ActEligible activities existmet | Eligibility asks only whether an act describes the activity |
| Materiality against a KPI | All of them are below 10% of every KPIAll below the 10% thresholdopen | Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/73 — 10%, assessed per KPI |
| Proportion excluded as non-material | NoNot disclosedopen | The relief requires the excluded proportion to be stated |
| Attribution to activities | Yes — by activityAttributablemet | A KPI is a share, so the denominator has to be split by activity |
| Templates in use | The 2026 templatesCurrentmet | The 2026 templates cut the summary data points sharply |
Why this verdict: The 10% relief has been taken and the disclosure that comes with it has not been made. Since Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/73 an economic activity accounting for less than 10% of turnover, CapEx or OpEx is non-material and may be omitted from Taxonomy assessment entirely — eligibility and alignment both, tested per KPI independently. That is a genuine and substantial simplification. What it is not is permission to say nothing, and the disclosure is wider than the relief is usually described as costing. Annex I of the Disclosures Delegated Act asks for the proportion treated as non-material, the economic sector those activities sit in, and an explanation of why materiality is absent. So taking the relief and reporting silence swaps one omission for another, and the second is the more conspicuous: an absent figure where the template expects one is visible on the face of the report, whereas the assessment you avoided would have been invisible.
This page computes no KPI. Turnover, CapEx and OpEx shares are arithmetic; what it settles is which activities enter the numerator at all, which is the categorical question that comes first and the one the 10% threshold now operates on. It is also eligibility only — whether an activity meets the technical screening criteria, does no significant harm and satisfies minimum safeguards is the alignment test, and the two figures are not interchangeable.
The delegated acts move independently of your business — an amending act can make a previously ineligible undertaking eligible without anything about it changing. We will email you when something this checker applies changes — not otherwise.
This checker applies Regulation (EU) 2020/852 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/73 as our reviewed standards page records them. It reads no financial data of yours and calculates nothing. It covers non-financial undertakings: financial undertakings are inside Article 8 and report different KPIs, and this page says so rather than guessing.
What this verdict means
Six outcomes. Two of them are clean, and the one at the top of the ramp is the newest — it exists because a genuine simplification arrived with a disclosure attached, and the simplification is much better known than the attachment.
Eligibility unassessed
Whether any activity is described in a delegated act has not been established. That single question is the whole of eligibility, and nothing else on this page can be settled until it is.
Exclusion undisclosed
The 10% relief was taken and the disclosure it carries was not made. You may omit the assessment; you may not omit saying how much you omitted.
Attribution missing
Turnover, CapEx and OpEx cannot yet be split by activity. Every Taxonomy KPI is a share, so without the split there is no numerator — and no way to test the threshold either.
Eligibility unreported
The position holds up and has not been stated. On this regulation that matters more than usual, because zero is a disclosure rather than an exemption.
Eligibility established
Activities identified, attributable, and the materiality position deliberate. This is eligibility only — alignment is a separate test.
No Article 8 obligation
Taxonomy reporting attaches to undertakings inside CSRD sustainability reporting rather than having thresholds of its own, and it does not reach you.
Eligible is not aligned
This is the distinction that carries most of the misreporting on the regulation, and it is easy to get wrong because the everyday meaning of “eligible” suggests approval. Here it does not.
| Eligible | Aligned | |
|---|---|---|
| The test | A delegated act describes the activity | Everything on the left, plus three more |
| What is added | — | Technical screening criteria · do no significant harm · minimum safeguards |
| Says the activity is green? | No | Yes, on the Regulation’s definition |
| Can an oil refinery qualify? | Yes | Not on those criteria |
| Where it appears | Its own line in the templates | A separate line |
An activity can be eligible and fail all three alignment tests. That is not an edge case; it is the ordinary situation for a great many described activities, because the delegated acts describe sectors that need to decarbonise as well as ones that already have.
Eligibility is a description, not a compliment. Reporting an eligibility figure where an alignment figure is expected flatters the report — and it flatters by an amount no reader outside the company can estimate, which is why the templates keep the two on separate lines.
The 10% threshold, new in January 2026
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/73 was published in the Official Journal on 8 January 2026, entered into force on 28 January 2026, and applies from 1 January 2026 for the 2025 financial year. It introduced a materiality threshold that changes how much assessment most undertakings owe.
| How it works | Detail |
|---|---|
| The threshold | An activity accounting for less than 10% of turnover, CapEx or OpEx is non-material |
| What it relieves | Non-material activities may be omitted from Taxonomy assessment entirely — eligibility and alignment |
| How it is tested | Per KPI, independently. An activity can be material for CapEx and immaterial for turnover in the same year |
| Reporting burden | Summary data points fall sharply — by roughly two thirds for non-financial undertakings |
| What you still owe | The excluded proportion, the sector of those activities, and an explanation of the absence of materiality |
| Transition | The previous templates remain available for the first reporting cycle |
The per-KPI point is the one most likely to be simplified away in practice. Materiality is not a single judgement about an activity — it is three separate judgements, one against each KPI, and the answers routinely differ. An activity you invest heavily in this year can be material for CapEx while contributing almost nothing to turnover.
The disclosure inside the relief
The threshold is a real and substantial simplification. It is not permission to say nothing.
Where you treat activities as non-material and skip the assessment, Annex I of the Disclosures Delegated Act asks for three things back: the proportion of turnover, CapEx or OpEx treated as non-material, the economic sector those activities sit in, and an explanation of why materiality is absent. Taking the relief and reporting silence swaps one omission for a more conspicuous one — an absent figure where a template expects one is visible on the face of the report, whereas the assessment you avoided would have been invisible.
There is a second-order effect worth anticipating. A reader who sees a large excluded proportion will ask what is in it. That is a fair question and it has a cheap answer if the working was kept — which is an argument for recording which activities were excluded and against which KPI, even though the regulation does not require the detail.
Zero per cent is a disclosure
An undertaking inside Article 8 whose activities are described in no delegated act reports 0% eligible. It does not report nothing.
This trips people up because zero feels like absence, and absence feels like nothing to file. But the templates have a place for it, and an undertaking that publishes silence has not satisfied the obligation — it has skipped it. The omission is also more visible than the zero would have been: a missing line is conspicuous in a way a nil return is not.
Screen your activities against the descriptions in the delegated acts, not against the NACE codes attached to them. The codes are indicative; the descriptions govern. Reading the code instead of the text is the most common route to a wrong answer, and it goes wrong in both directions — claiming eligibility you do not have, and missing eligibility you do.
Edge cases that change the answer
- Eligibility moves when the delegated acts do, not when you do. An amending act can describe an activity that was not previously described, making a previously ineligible undertaking eligible without anything about the business changing.
- Materiality is not stable between cycles. It is tested per KPI and per year, so the set of activities you must assess changes with your investment pattern rather than with your operations.
- A material activity is assessed in its entirety. Where an activity is material for a KPI you cannot carve the awkward portion out and call that part non-material. The Commission publishes an illustrative refusal — one construction activity carried out across six countries, where the country with the poor result cannot be excluded on its own.
- Start from your IFRS 8 segments. The Commission reads Taxonomy materiality consistently with the IFRS 8 notion of a reportable segment, so an activity you do not report as a segment is a strong candidate for non-material. It is a starting point rather than a mapping — segments follow how the business is managed, the Taxonomy follows what the activity is.
- Activities that span two descriptions are where the split is hardest. They are also where the eligible share is most arguable, which is a reason to identify them before the cycle rather than during it.
- Financial undertakings are in scope, on different instruments. Banks, insurers and asset managers report a green asset ratio rather than a turnover share, and the threshold applies to assets in the denominator. This checker stops rather than applying the wrong logic.
- No obligation is not the same as no interest. Lenders, investors and customers ask undertakings outside Article 8 for eligibility and alignment figures, and a voluntary figure is held to exactly the same definitions as a mandatory one.
What this checker does not decide
It does not assess alignment. Technical screening criteria, do-no-significant-harm and minimum safeguards are the alignment test, and they are a substantially larger exercise. This page settles which activities are even in scope for it.
It computes no KPI. Turnover, CapEx and OpEx shares are arithmetic. What this decides is which activities enter the numerator at all — the categorical question that comes first, and the one the 10% threshold now operates on.
It does not decide whether Article 8 reaches you. That follows CSRD scope rather than having thresholds of its own, so it is settled by the CSRD Applicability Checker.
It does not cover financial undertakings. They are squarely inside Article 8 and report different KPIs. Applying non-financial logic to a green asset ratio produces a confident wrong answer, which is worse than none, so the tool names the position and stops.
It is not a materiality assessment for reporting purposes. Taxonomy materiality is a numeric share test. Whether a topic is material for double materiality under ESRS is a different question with a different method.
How we keep this current
Every date and threshold here was traced to the instrument rather than to a summary, and on this regulation that mattered more than usual: the simplification is recent enough that a great deal of otherwise-reliable material still describes the pre-2026 regime, in which there was no materiality threshold and the templates were substantially longer.
The distinction the page rests on — eligible against aligned — was not changed by the simplification, and it is worth saying so explicitly, because a reform that reduced reporting by two thirds invites the assumption that it reduced everything. It did not touch the conceptual structure.
The checker stamps the date of the check into every result and export. The re-check control emails you when something this page applies changes — and on this regulation the change most likely to affect you is an amending delegated act describing an activity that was not described before, which happens without any warning from your own operations.
Frequently asked questions
Eligible means a delegated act describes your economic activity. That is the whole test, and it says nothing about whether the activity is green — an oil refinery can be eligible, because the acts describe sectors that need to decarbonise as well as sectors that already have. Aligned means the activity is eligible and meets the technical screening criteria, and does no significant harm to the other environmental objectives, and satisfies the minimum safeguards. An activity can be eligible while failing all three, which is why the templates keep the two figures on separate lines.
Yes — you report 0% eligible. Zero is a disclosure rather than an exemption, and the templates have a place for it. An undertaking inside Article 8 that publishes silence has not satisfied the obligation, it has skipped it, and the omission is more visible than the zero would have been: a missing line is conspicuous in a way a nil return is not.
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/73 — published 8 January 2026, in force 28 January 2026, applying from 1 January 2026 for the 2025 financial year — made an economic activity accounting for less than 10% of turnover, CapEx or OpEx non-material. Non-material activities may be omitted from Taxonomy assessment entirely, covering both eligibility and alignment. It also cut the summary data points sharply, by roughly two thirds for non-financial undertakings. Materiality is assessed for each KPI independently.
You can leave the assessment out. You cannot leave out saying that you did, and the disclosure is wider than the relief is usually described as costing: Annex I asks for the proportion treated as non-material, the economic sector those activities sit in, and an explanation of why materiality is absent. Taking the relief and reporting silence swaps one omission for another, and the second is the more conspicuous — an absent figure where a template expects one is visible on the face of the report, whereas the assessment you avoided would have been invisible.
Per KPI, independently — and this is the detail most likely to be simplified away in practice. It is three separate judgements, one against turnover, one against CapEx and one against OpEx, and the answers routinely differ. An activity you invest heavily in during a given year can be material for CapEx while contributing almost nothing to turnover in the same year. It follows that the set of activities you must assess is not stable between reporting cycles, and it moves with your investment pattern rather than with your operations.
Use them to narrow the search, not to decide. The NACE codes attached to activities in the delegated acts are indicative; the activity descriptions govern. Reading the code instead of the text is the most common route to a wrong answer, and it goes wrong in both directions — claiming eligibility you do not have because the code matches, and missing eligibility you do have because it does not.
Article 8 applies to you, and this checker does not — deliberately. Credit institutions, insurers and asset managers report different KPI instruments: a green asset ratio is not a turnover share, and the 10% threshold applies to financial assets in the denominator rather than to an activity share. Applying the non-financial logic to a financial undertaking produces a confident wrong answer, which is worse than no answer, so the tool names the position and stops there.
For the first reporting cycle, yes — the previous framework remains available as a transition option. It does not persist, though, and the mapping between the two sets is worth doing before it becomes compulsory rather than during the cycle in which it does. Either choice is defensible; not knowing which one you are on is not.
Not necessarily. Having no obligation to publish is a statement about the regulation, not about your commercial position. Lenders, investors and large customers routinely ask undertakings outside Article 8 for eligibility and alignment figures, particularly where financing is involved. A voluntary figure is held to exactly the same definitions as a mandatory one, so the distinction between eligible and aligned matters just as much when nobody is compelling you to report it.