Description

A focused course, tailored for you

CSRD Substantial Contribution for Banking Program Officers

Build the EU Taxonomy alignment assessment your CFO can sign off without a three-month back-and-forth.

The CSRD substantial contribution assessment for a diversified bank loan book is not a template problem. It is a methodology problem: which economic activities qualify, how Do No Significant Harm screens apply at portfolio level, and how the output connects to the CSRD disclosure tables that go to the external assurer. Most program officers inherit a spreadsheet and a deadline.

$199 one-time

Tailored to your situation. Access within 24 hours. 30-day money-back.

Includes a hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, generated for your specific situation.

Why this course

Sustainability Program Officers at large banks sit at the intersection of three teams that do not share a common vocabulary: the climate risk unit that sets DNSH thresholds, the finance controllers who own the Pillar 3 ESG disclosure tables, and the business lines who classify their own loan exposures. The EU Taxonomy Regulation requires a documented substantial contribution assessment for every eligible economic activity in the lending book. CSRD then requires that assessment to feed directly into the ESRS E1 and E2 disclosures, with an audit trail an external assurance provider can follow. Closing that loop in a single consistent methodology, without renegotiating the numbers with Finance every quarter, is the actual deliverable the program officer is accountable for.

What you walk away with

Map every eligible economic activity in a bank lending book to the correct EU Taxonomy criteria, documented at the level an external assurer can review.
Design Do No Significant Harm screens that are consistent across the climate risk, credit risk, and sustainability teams without requiring a new cross-functional negotiation each reporting cycle.
Produce the ESRS E1 and E2 disclosure tables from the Taxonomy alignment assessment without manual rekeying or format translation.
Build the internal sign-off process from program officer to CFO that clears Finance review in one round rather than three.
Create the audit trail the external assurance provider needs to issue limited assurance on the Taxonomy KPIs.
Hand off a repeatable methodology to a junior team member so the next reporting cycle does not restart from scratch.

The 12 modules

Module 1. EU Taxonomy Regulation: what the substantial contribution test actually requires from a bank

The Taxonomy Regulation Article 10-15 criteria apply differently to financial institutions than to corporates. This module covers the financial sector eligibility logic: which economic activities in a diversified lending book fall within the six environmental objectives, how the portfolio-level assessment differs from a single-asset assessment, and why most program officers underestimate the scope of the eligible activity mapping before they start.

Module 2. Economic activity classification: building the eligible activity inventory for a loan portfolio

Before any assessment can begin, the program officer needs a defensible inventory of which loan exposures belong to which Taxonomy economic activity code. This module covers the classification methodology: how to work with business line data, how to handle mixed-use assets and multi-purpose facilities, what level of granularity the Taxonomy Technical Screening Criteria require, and how to document classification decisions so they survive an external challenge.

Module 3. Substantial contribution criteria: applying the Technical Screening Criteria to a lending book

Each of the six environmental objectives has its own Technical Screening Criteria. This module focuses on Climate Change Mitigation and Climate Change Adaptation as the two most common objectives in a retail and commercial lending book. It covers how to assess loan-financed assets against the TSC thresholds, how to handle assets where the borrower has not provided full disclosure, and how to set a defensible methodology for estimating alignment where direct data is unavailable.

Module 4. Do No Significant Harm: designing screens that work across the credit portfolio

The DNSH assessment is where most bank sustainability programs hit friction with the climate risk and credit risk teams. This module covers how to design DNSH screens that are consistent with existing Environmental and Social Risk frameworks, how to document the DNSH assessment at portfolio level rather than loan by loan, what the minimum disclosure standard is, and how to get a single agreed DNSH methodology signed off by both the sustainability and risk functions without a prolonged cross-team negotiation.

Module 5. Minimum Social Safeguards: the OECD and ILO requirements in a lending context

The MSS requirement is often treated as a formality, but it has specific documentation requirements that auditors check. This module covers what the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and ILO Core Conventions require in the context of a bank's financed activities, how to assess whether borrowers meet the minimum safeguards threshold, and how to document the assessment in a format the external assurer can review without requesting additional supporting material.

Module 6. Taxonomy KPI calculation: Green Asset Ratio and Taxonomy-aligned lending ratio

The Green Asset Ratio is the primary Taxonomy KPI for credit institutions under the Taxonomy Regulation. This module covers the GAR calculation methodology step by step: the eligible asset denominator, the aligned asset numerator, the treatment of sovereign exposures and central bank assets, and the transition from the eligible-only disclosure to the aligned disclosure. It also covers the Banking Book Taxonomy Alignment Ratio for assets outside the GAR scope.

Module 7. CSRD and ESRS: linking the Taxonomy assessment to the mandatory sustainability statement

CSRD requires that Taxonomy alignment information appear within the sustainability statement in the ESRS E1 and E2 disclosures. This module covers the specific data points required under ESRS E1-9 and E2-6, how the Taxonomy assessment feeds those data points, how to avoid inconsistencies between the Taxonomy KPI tables and the ESRS narrative disclosures, and what the cross-reference requirement between the Taxonomy disclosure and the financial statements means in practice.

Module 8. Principal Adverse Impact indicators: building the PAI statement from portfolio data

For banks subject to SFDR as well as CSRD, the PAI statement draws on much of the same underlying data as the Taxonomy assessment. This module covers the 18 mandatory PAI indicators for financial products, how to collect the underlying data from the lending portfolio, how to avoid double-counting between the PAI and the Taxonomy disclosure, and how to structure the PAI statement so it does not contradict the ESRS E1 and E2 disclosures.

Module 9. Data collection and quality: getting borrower ESG data at the scale a lending book requires

The practical constraint on Taxonomy alignment assessment is data availability from borrowers. This module covers the data collection strategy: what to request from SME borrowers versus large corporates, how to use proxies and estimation methodologies where borrower data is unavailable, how to document data quality and the estimation approach so auditors can assess its reliability, and how to structure the data collection process so the program team is not manually chasing hundreds of counterparties each reporting cycle.

Module 10. Internal sign-off: taking the Taxonomy assessment from program officer to CFO

The Taxonomy alignment assessment requires sign-off from senior finance and risk leadership before it can appear in the annual report. This module covers how to structure the internal review process: the one-page executive summary the CFO needs, the materiality threshold questions Finance will ask, how to handle challenges from business line heads who contest the classification of their portfolios, and how to document the sign-off process so it does not need to be rebuilt from scratch the following year.

Module 11. External assurance: preparing the audit trail for limited assurance on Taxonomy KPIs

CSRD requires limited assurance on the sustainability statement, which includes the Taxonomy KPIs. This module covers what external assurance providers look for in a Taxonomy assessment: the documentation chain from raw loan data to the published GAR, the key areas where assurance findings typically arise, how to prepare the working papers the auditors will request, and how to respond to assurance queries without reopening the entire methodology each year.

Module 12. Building a repeatable methodology: handing the assessment off to the next reporting cycle

A sustainable Taxonomy program does not require the same conceptual work each reporting cycle. This module covers how to document the methodology so a junior team member can execute it, how to build a control framework for the annual update, how to track changes to the Technical Screening Criteria without restarting from scratch, and how to brief a new CFO on the approach without a full methodology review.

How this addresses your situation

Specific modules that map to what you said you are dealing with.

The DNSH screen module (4) was built for the situation where the climate risk team and the sustainability team have never agreed on a single threshold and the program officer is the one stuck in the middle.

The internal sign-off module (10) was built for the situation where the CFO review is a three-round process because Finance and Sustainability are not working from the same methodology document.

The external assurance module (11) was built for the first-time assurance engagement where the auditors request supporting documentation the program team does not yet have in a structured form.

The data collection module (9) was built for the situation where the assessment is bottlenecked on borrower responses and the program officer is estimating more than they are disclosing.

What you get with this course

12 written modules covering EU Taxonomy assessment methodology from activity classification through to external assurance preparation
Downloadable templates: eligible activity inventory, DNSH screen design worksheet, GAR calculation workbook, PAI indicator tracker, internal sign-off brief, assurance working paper index
Hand-built implementation playbook covering your specific reporting cycle: which modules apply to your loan book scope, the sequence to run them in, and the documents to produce at each stage
Access within 24 hours of purchase, playbook delivered alongside course access

What you will have in hand by Day 1, Week 1, Month 1

Access to all 12 modules and downloadable templates within 24 hours of purchase

Hand-built implementation playbook covering your reporting cycle scope delivered alongside course access

No scheduled sessions or live components; work through the modules at the pace your reporting cycle allows

Before and after

Before

The Taxonomy assessment draft goes to Finance, comes back with questions about the DNSH methodology, goes to the climate risk team, comes back with a different threshold, and the program officer is managing a three-way negotiation every quarter while the reporting deadline moves closer.

After

A single documented methodology, signed off by Finance and Risk in one review cycle, that the external assurer can follow from the loan classification data to the published GAR without requesting additional supporting material.

What happens if you do not address this

CSRD limited assurance is not optional for large European financial institutions. An undocumented or inconsistent Taxonomy assessment methodology is the highest-probability source of a qualified assurance finding in the first reporting cycle. A qualified finding on the Taxonomy KPIs requires public disclosure and triggers investor and regulator scrutiny that is disproportionate to the cost of getting the methodology right before the assessment is run.

Who it is for

Sustainability Program Officers and ESG Reporting Managers at European banks who are accountable for EU Taxonomy alignment reporting and CSRD implementation. Typically three to eight years into a finance or risk career before moving into sustainability, comfortable with regulatory frameworks, not yet confident in the specific CSRD-to-Taxonomy bridge methodology.

Who this is NOT for. Consultants building a generic ESG advisory practice. Corporates outside financial services whose CSRD scope does not include a lending or investment portfolio. Anyone who already has a signed-off substantial contribution methodology and just needs the disclosure template.

How it arrives

Text-based course in the Art of Service learning environment, plus downloadable templates and worked examples for every module, plus the hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access.

Time investment. Each module is designed to be read in 20-30 minutes. The full 12-module sequence can be completed in a concentrated two-day period or spread across a working week. The implementation playbook is designed to be used in parallel with the modules, not after them.

Why $199 is the right number

The EBA and ECB guidance documents cover the regulatory requirement but not the methodology. External consultants charge 20,000-80,000 EUR for a Taxonomy assessment engagement and leave the program officer without a repeatable internal capability. The CSRD reporting software vendors embed a Taxonomy module but do not teach the underlying methodology, so the program team cannot defend the output to auditors or update it when the Technical Screening Criteria change.

FAQ

Does this cover the delegated acts for all six environmental objectives?

The course covers Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in full, as these cover the majority of eligible economic activities in a typical bank lending book. It covers the Water, Circular Economy, Pollution, and Biodiversity objectives at the level required for a banking portfolio assessment, including which activities are likely to fall under these objectives and how the DNSH screens apply.

Is this relevant if we are not yet subject to CSRD mandatory reporting?

Yes. Banks that are preparing for CSRD or that are subject to SFDR PAI reporting will find the Taxonomy alignment methodology directly applicable. The internal methodology and data collection infrastructure built through this course applies to voluntary Taxonomy disclosure, SFDR entity-level reporting, and mandatory CSRD disclosure.

What if our Taxonomy methodology is already partially in place?

The course is modular. If the eligible activity inventory is complete but the DNSH screens are still contested internally, modules 4 and 5 are the priority. If the methodology is agreed but the audit trail is not ready for assurance, modules 11 and 12 are the priority. The implementation playbook identifies which modules are most relevant to where you currently are.

30-day money-back guarantee. If after a week of working through the materials this is not what you needed, reply to the receipt email and a full refund is processed. No questions, no forms.

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.