EU adopts new delegated regulation on EU taxonomy: What is behind it?

However, the disclosure requirements involve considerable effort for companies, as they must verify whether their business activities meet the technical screening criteria, some of which are very detailed. The new delegated regulation now introduces, among other things, simplifications to the disclosure requirements, with the aim of reducing administrative bur-dens and facilitating application.

The EU Commission had already published the proposed amendments to the EU taxonomy as part of the Omnibus I package on February 26, 2025. Some of the proposals contained therein have been incorporated into the current version, but there have also been adjustments to the original draft.

As already provided for in the draft of February 26, 2025, two materiality thresholds are to apply in future to reporting by non-financial companies under the EU taxonomy. However, the version now published differs from the draft in terms of the exact design of the thresholds.

According to the current version, a 10% de minimis threshold will be introduced for revenue, CapEx, and OpEx. This will allow companies to waive the assessment of the taxonomy eligibility or alignment of activities if these activities account for less than 10% of the denominator of the relevant KPI.

Compared to the draft, the wording has now been clarified to make it clear that the materiality threshold covers both the assessment of taxonomy eligibility and alignment and that the materiality test must be carried out individually for each KPI. The portion of revenue, CapEx, and OpEx identified as immaterial must still be reported as immaterial and disclosed accordingly. In addition, companies should indicate the relevant sector for each immaterial activity on an individual basis, using the NACE codes as a guide. This information is intended to ensure appropriate transparency.

A further materiality threshold has also been introduced for the disclosure of OpEx. The new regulation stipulates that the assessment of the taxonomy eligibility and alignment of OpEx can be waived entirely. Unlike the draft version, which contained a specific threshold of 25%, the current version now stipulates that companies can waive the assessment if the operating expenses in question are not considered material in the context of their business model. Consequently, an overall assessment must be made without a specific threshold value. This line of argumentation is consistent with the OpEx relief measures that have been in place to date and therefore appears more coherent than the argumentation provided in the draft. If companies conclude that OpEx is to be classified as not material overall, they must nevertheless disclose the total amount of the OpEx KPI denominator and explain why OpEx is not material for their business model.

The introduction of materiality thresholds is intended to reduce the burden, particularly for companies that have few taxonomy-eligible activities.

The draft's proposed adjustment of the DNSH criteria with regard to the environmental objective of pollution prevention regarding use and presence of chemicals has also been adopted in the current version in a slightly modified form.

The requirements of Annex C that were previously in force were very challenging, among other things because they left room for interpretation and were also very time-consuming to verify. The core of the changes is, on the one hand, the addition of specific exceptions for clarification and, on the other, the removal of certain requirements.

Specifically, the following changes have been made to Annex C:

The EU Commission has announced plans to further revise and simplify the technical assessment criteria, in particular the DNSH criteria, in order to further improve the practicality of the EU taxonomy and better align the regulation with existing EU law.

The EU Taxonomy Regulation requires the disclosure of key figures in mandatory reporting templates. These reporting templates have been amended in the delegated regulation. The amendments remove previous duplications and reduce the disclosures in the reporting templates to data points that are particularly relevant for investors and other stakeholders. According to the EU Commission's estimates, the number of data points will be reduced by 64% (from 78 to 28).

This means, among other things, that information on compliance with DNSH criteria and minimum safeguards for taxonomy-aligned activities will no longer be required. In addition, the reporting template for the delegated regulation on economic activities in certain energy sectors (DelReg (EU) 2022/1214), which currently still has to be disclosed separately, will be abolished. In future, the information will be covered by the general reporting forms or integrated into them. 

However, these changes only affect the presentation of the results and do not directly lead to a change in the KPI survey.

Companies that are not yet required to report in accordance with the EU taxonomy but are already in the process of conducting an eligibility or early alignment assessment should consider whether to continue the alignment assessment based on the current legal status or whether it makes sense to wait for the revision planned by the EU Commission in the near future.

Both the EU Parliament and the EU Council can raise objections within a maximum period of six months, but cannot make any specific changes to the content. If no objections are raised, the delegated regulation is then published in the EU Official Journal and enters into force. This makes the delegated regulation applicable EU law and binding on all EU member states. Transposition into national law is not required. Publication in the EU Official Journal is expected between the end of 2025 and the beginning of 2026.

Meanwhile, discussions are continuing on the future scope of application of the EU taxonomy. To stay up to date on all other changes related to the Omnibus I package, please read our latest article „Omnibus Initiative in motion: How far along is the EU with its course correction?“​.