Help and support with Taxonomy Reporting

We offer support in reporting under the EU Taxonomy Regulation, from interpretation and analysis to calculations, documentation, and reporting. The taxonomy is a key tool in the EU's efforts to direct capital toward more sustainable investments and contribute to the transition to a climate-neutral economy.

For many organisations, the taxonomy brings not only new reporting requirements but also the need to build structure around data, processes, division of responsibility, and assessments related to the organisation's sustainability work. The regulatory framework is complex and often requires cross-functional collaboration between areas such as sustainability, finance, technology, operations, and risk management.

We work closely with our customers to create a practically feasible, quality-assured taxonomy process tailored to the organisation's circumstances, level of maturity, and ambitions. For some organisations, the work is primarily about ensuring regulatory compliance and reporting readiness, while others focus on strengthening internal processes, improving data quality, or gaining a better understanding of how the taxonomy affects the business strategically and financially.

What is the EU Taxonomy?

The EU Taxonomy is a shared classification system for environmentally sustainable economic activities. Its purpose is to create transparency and comparability around sustainable investments and to make it easier for investors and other stakeholders to assess how sustainable a business is.

For an activity to be classified as environmentally sustainable, it must make a substantial contribution to at least one of the EU's six environmental objectives, do no significant harm to any of the other objectives, meet minimum safeguards for social sustainability, and comply with the technical screening criteria established by the EU.

In practice, this often requires extensive analysis and assessment of a company's activities, processes, investments, and governance, along with clear documentation and traceability in reporting.

Taxonomy reporting is normally based on the same consolidation principles as financial reporting. This generally means that subsidiaries consolidated in the group accounts are also included in the taxonomy KPIs, regardless of geographic location, while associates and joint ventures accounted for using the equity method are normally not included in turnover, capital expenditure (CapEx), and operating expenditure (OpEx) in taxonomy reporting.

What companies are affected by the EU Taxonomy?

The EU Taxonomy Regulation is closely linked to the CSRD and, in practice, covers the same companies subject to sustainability reporting under the CSRD.

For the 2025 reporting year, the rules applied to public-interest entities with more than 500 employees. Based on the current state of affairs, the main principle going forward is that mandatory CSRD and taxonomy reporting will primarily apply to very large companies, with thresholds covering companies with more than 1,000 employees and over €450 million in net turnover. At the same time, we see that the taxonomy also affects many organisations not directly covered by the regulation for example, through requirements and information needs from investors, banks, customers, and other actors in the value chain.

We therefore work both with organisations directly subject to legal requirements and with companies that voluntarily want to understand, analyse, or communicate how their operations relate to the taxonomy.

The taxonomy is an important part of the EU's sustainability agenda and aims to direct capital flows toward more sustainable activities and investments. For companies, the taxonomy therefore becomes not just a reporting matter but also a strategic issue linked to financing, competitiveness, and long-term transition.

We see that the taxonomy is increasingly used by investors, banks, and other stakeholders as a basis for assessing companies' sustainability efforts, transition capacity, and exposure to sustainability-related risks and opportunities.

How we work with the Taxonomy

In many engagements, we begin by mapping the organisation's activities, investments, and value chain to identify which parts of the business are covered by the taxonomy and which activities may be taxonomy-eligible. We then analyse taxonomy alignment, application of technical screening criteria, DNSH assessments, and minimum safeguards, as well as developing and quality-assuring relevant KPIs.

We also provide support with methodology, data collection, internal documentation, and reporting structure to create a robust and practically feasible process over time. For many organisations, we also serve as an ongoing source of support and a sounding board as regulations, operations, and information needs evolve.

Climate risk analysis and the Taxonomy

Several parts of the taxonomy, particularly those linked to the environmental objective of climate change adaptation, equire analysis of climate-related risks and vulnerabilities to assess whether an organisation meets the taxonomy's criteria.

We support organisations with analyses of physical climate risks and vulnerabilities related to, for example, flooding, heavy rainfall, heat stress, drought, storms, and rising sea levels. This work aims to build an understanding of how climate change may affect assets, operations, and geographic areas over time, and to ensure that analyses and assessments are sufficiently robust to meet the taxonomy's requirements

Common mistakes in taxonomy reporting work

Working with the EU Taxonomy Regulation often involves complex assessments and large amounts of data. Below are some common challenges companies frequently encounter in taxonomy reporting.

Incorrect identification of activities
A common challenge is that companies either miss activities that fall within the scope of the taxonomy or include activities that aren't actually taxonomy-eligible. This typically requires a careful analysis of the company's activities, investments, and revenue streams.
Focusing on eligibility rather than alignment
Many companies make good progress in identifying taxonomy-eligible activities but underestimate the work involved in assessing taxonomy alignment. The fact that an activity falls within the scope of the taxonomy doesn't automatically mean the technical screening criteria and DNSH requirements are met.
Insufficient data and documentation
Access to relevant, quality-assured data is often a challenge, particularly when calculating KPIs and assessing technical criteria. At the same time, clear documentation of methodology, assumptions, and assessments is essential for a robust reporting process.
Underestimating DNSH requirements and minimum safeguards
DNSH assessments and analyses of minimum safeguards are often more extensive than many companies initially expect. This work typically requires both supplementary processes and additional evidence to demonstrate compliance.
Inadequate analysis of climate-related risks
Certain parts of the taxonomy, particularly those related to climate adaptation, require analysis of climate-related risks and vulnerabilities. A common mistake is that these analyses end up too general or fail to account for specific assets, geographic areas, or future climate scenarios
Treating the taxonomy as an isolated reporting matter
The taxonomy often affects multiple parts of a business and requires collaboration across areas such as sustainability, finance, operations, and risk management. When the work is handled in isolation within a single function, there's a risk that important perspectives and data are overlooked.