EU Taxonomy Reporting 2026

Methodological changes – not real shifts in capital allocation – are driving higher Taxonomy alignment. Portfolio sustainability has barely improved year on year, while the use of Taxonomy data for steering is gradually increasing and data quality and automation continue to improve.

A key finding: the new, simplified Omnibus I templates have almost doubled Taxonomy alignment. This increase is driven by a methodological change that excludes counterparties not subject to CSRD from the denominator—not by an actual shift of capital toward green investments. Higher ratios may make strategic use easier in future, but most financial institutions still use Taxonomy data mainly for regulatory compliance. Surveyed institutions cite frequent regulatory changes, limited usefulness of the metrics as long-term management indicators, insufficient data quality, and weak demand from the market, customers, and the public sector as key obstacles. 

It must be noted that the adoption of the new Omnibus-I templates, which had been optional for FY2025, strongly varied by geographies. In Belgium, all players included in the study had chosen to stay with the original, i.e. pre-Omnibus templates in the transition period with one player deciding to use the opt-out option under the Omnibus-I reliefs. This renders the comparability of result reporting for 2025 even more limited. 

In Belgium, under the old templates, a slight increase in the green asset ratio (GAR) and green investment ratio (GIR) was observed. Most of this increase is probably due to data improvements. 

In Belgium, only 2 out of 5 entities with non-life insurance and reinsurance activities report alignment on their underwriting activities.

• Higher alignment through methodology change: Excluding counterparties not subject to CSRD from the denominator has nearly doubled the Green Asset Ratio and Green Investment Ratio – without any real reallocation of capital. The higher KPIs increase management-level visibility and make integration into steering processes easier.

• Limited comparability: For this reporting period on FY 2025, companies may apply either the old or new methodology, making comparisons across institutions and with the previous year significantly more difficult.

• Strategic use is gradually expanding: Most financial institutions still rely on Taxonomy data mainly for compliance. However, practical use cases are beginning to emerge in credit decisions, green bonds, and other financial products.

• Data quality is improving, processes becoming more efficient: Institutions have built robust data infrastructures, advanced automation, and strengthened internal competencies – a foundation for the future shift from compliance to strategy. 

• Lack of external incentives: Without political support, targeted incentives, and market demand, the Taxonomy remains primarily a compliance tool.

What needs to happen for the Taxonomy to become strategically relevant?

PwC recommends four concrete steps for financial institutions: 

1. Further improvement of data quality through active engagement with business partners, customers, and industry associations. 

2. Additional investments in data infrastructure and automation in order to shift resources from pure compliance toward strategic use – for example for sustainability risk management or business strategy.

3. Use of Taxonomy data for the design of green financial products such as green bonds or green incentives for loans or insurance products.

4. Active participation in regulatory consultations to further improve usability and decision relevance. 

Beyond this, closer integration with other regulations such as the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is needed. Above all, however, there is a lack of clear political commitment, incentives, and external demand. Without these prerequisites, the Taxonomy will remain primarily a compliance instrument despite technical improvements.