Skip to main content
Back to Glossary
Definition

Do no significant harm (EU Taxonomy)

Under the EU Taxonomy, do no significant harm requires an economic activity seeking alignment for an environmental objective to meet the applicable harm-prevention criteria for the other environmental objectives.

What is do no significant harm under the EU Taxonomy?

Do no significant harm (DNSH) is one of Article 3's conditions for Taxonomy alignment: an activity cannot be aligned if it fails an applicable harm-prevention test. Article 17 defines significant harm. Delegated acts are EU rulebooks with activity tables and detailed criteria. The EU Taxonomy page places DNSH among the other alignment conditions.

Why does do no significant harm matter to you?

Finance and operations teams may assess DNSH when calculating Taxonomy-aligned turnover, capital expenditure, or operating expenditure, or when answering an investor request. One failed criterion or unsupported answer prevents alignment for that contribution objective.

How does do no significant harm work?

For each claimed contribution objective, match the activity to the exact delegated-act table and version. Support every DNSH row with the required calculation, assessment, permit, or other record. Use N/A only where printed. Article 17(2) also requires consideration of production, use, and end-of-life impacts.

What mistakes should you avoid?

  • Using a company policy as proof that a specific activity passes its criteria.
  • Writing N/A because information is missing rather than because the activity table authorises it.
  • Counting completed rows without proving each applicable test or recording the rulebook version used.

Does DNSH mean zero environmental impact?

DNSH does not mean zero impact. It asks whether the activity crosses the significant-harm definitions and technical criteria that apply to the alignment claim.

Can one DNSH worksheet cover more than one contribution objective?

Only if it separately identifies each claimed objective, activity table, criteria version, answer, and supporting record. A result prepared for a climate-mitigation claim does not automatically prove alignment under climate adaptation or another objective.

Example

Hypothetical Netherlands renewable-energy EPC example: Suppose an engineering, procurement and construction contractor designs an on-site air-source heat-pump installation for a new warehouse. The team maps the work to Climate Delegated Act Annex I section 7.6(c), which covers qualifying heat-pump installations. The equipment has an expected life of eight years, so Appendix A calls for climate projections at the smallest appropriate scale.

The team checks the Appendix A hazard list and identifies heat waves, storms, heavy precipitation, and pluvial flooding. Its site model shows a design flood depth of 0.45 metres, while the first design places the control cabinet 0.30 metres above ground. Flooding is therefore material because the modelled depth exceeds the cabinet height by 0.15 metres.

The team compares a barrier with raising the cabinet, selects a 0.75-metre plinth, confirms that it will not divert water onto neighbouring property, and checks it against the local adaptation plan. The cabinet is installed before operations. Its margin above the modelled flood depth is 0.75 - 0.45 = 0.30 metres. That margin is a project design choice, not an EU threshold. The file also records the four N/A rows in section 7.6; those rows define scope but do not prove that the adaptation criterion passes.

Where it comes up

EU Taxonomy DNSH condition and significant-harm definitionsRegulation (EU) 2020/852, Articles 3(b) and 17(1)-(2)Official sourceRenewable-energy installation DNSH criteria for climate adaptationDelegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139, Annex I section 7.6 and Appendix A, consolidated 1 January 2026Official source

Related terms

EU Taxonomy

The EU Taxonomy classifies activities as environmentally sustainable when they support an environmental goal, do not seriously harm the others, follow basic social safeguards, and meet detailed activity rules; Article 8 turns the assessment into company disclosure figures.

Physical climate risk

Physical climate risk is the potential for acute events or chronic climate shifts to damage assets, interrupt operations, disrupt supply chains, and change revenue, costs, cash flows, financing, or insurance.

Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires qualifying EU undertakings and groups, plus certain non-EU groups, to publish assured sustainability information under European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS).

Sustainability Reporting

Sustainability reporting is the process of publishing evidence-backed information about a company's environmental, social, and governance impacts, risks, opportunities, policies, targets, and performance for a defined period and business boundary.

Sources

  • EUR-Lex

    Articles 3(b) and 17: the DNSH alignment condition, six forms of significant harm, and life-cycle consideration

    2026-08-20

  • EUR-Lex

    Annex I section 7.6 and Appendix A: the renewable-energy installation table and climate-risk and adaptation requirements used in the example

    2026-08-20

Last verified 2026-08-20

Ready to start?

Tell us what you need.

Bring us the sustainability request, reporting deadline, or strategy question you are facing. We will read it and suggest a practical first step, and the first conversation is free.

Get in touch
Do no significant harm (EU Taxonomy) Definition | Keslio