Taxonomie 101

The document outlines a four-phase framework for sustainable finance taxonomies: governance, design, implementation, and expansion/revision. It emphasizes 'interoperability'—the ability of different taxonomies to share common principles and scientific bases, such as the Paris Agreement, to facilitate cross-border financial flows. The guide details the creation of technical selection criteria (TSC), the integration of transition activities using 'binary' or 'traffic-light' approaches, and the application of 'Do No Significant Harm' (DNSH) and Minimum Social Safeguards (MSS) principles. It also provides a step-by-step alignment guide for activities, entities, and portfolios, while offering strategies to make taxonomies accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

• Effective taxonomy governance is structured across three levels: high-level decision-making and supervision, administration and project management, and technical advisory and work.
• Taxonomy design is based on four fundamental pillars: environmental and social objectives, sectoral structure and activity selection, technical selection criteria (TSC), and alignment components including 'Do No Significant Harm' (DNSH) and Minimum Social Safeguards (MSS).
• There is a global consensus around six core environmental objectives: climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, biodiversity protection, protection of water and marine resources, pollution prevention, and circular economy.
• The International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) is commonly used as the reference for sectoral and economic activity classification to ensure taxonomies are comparable across different jurisdictions.
• Technical selection criteria are most effective when they are binary 'pass/fail' results, as they reduce subjectivity and are easier to harmonize internationally compared to principle-based or qualitative criteria.
• To integrate transition activities, taxonomies use either a 'binary approach' (single set of criteria) or a 'traffic-light approach' (distinct levels for green, transition/amber, and excluded activities).
• Transition criteria must include safeguards to prevent 'greenwashing' or 'transitionwashing', such as applying only to activities without low-carbon alternatives, requiring improvement over time, and establishing a definitive expiration date.
• Taxonomy implementation can be voluntary or mandatory; while most are voluntary, the EU and China are notable exceptions with mandatory adherence for certain disclosures or instruments.
• Alignment is assessed at three levels of aggregation: Level 1 (Activity), Level 2 (Entity), and Level 3 (Portfolio), with each level building upon the previous one.
• To support SMEs, taxonomies can simplify compliance through reduced criteria, alternative disclosure forms when data is missing, and the use of materiality thresholds (e.g., 90% of revenue/expenditure).
• Taxonomies should be updated every three to five years to remain aligned with scientific, technological, and market evolutions, utilizing 'grandfathering' clauses to provide investment certainty during criteria changes.

APA

Climate Bonds Initiative (n.d.). Taxonomie 101. https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/Taxonomie-101_Franc%CC%A7ais_-2026.pdf

Chicago

Climate Bonds Initiative. Taxonomie 101. n.d. https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/Taxonomie-101_Franc%CC%A7ais_-2026.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Climate Bonds Initiative |title=Taxonomie 101 |url=https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/Taxonomie-101_Franc%CC%A7ais_-2026.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{climatebondsinitiativendtaxonomie, author = {{Climate Bonds Initiative}}, title = {{Taxonomie 101}}, institution = {Climate Bonds Initiative}, url = {https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/Taxonomie-101_Franc%CC%A7ais_-2026.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }