References & Standards
Discover the foundational references and reporting standards that shape Tracenable’s Waste Dataset.
Foundational References
These are the authoritative sources we rely on to define terms, set classification rules, and resolve edge cases. When sources conflict, we prioritize jurisdictional applicability first, then the most specific guidance.
EU Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC)
Why it matters: Establishes legal definitions (e.g., waste, hazardous waste), the waste hierarchy, R/D operation codes (recovery vs disposal), and extended producer responsibility used widely across the EU and referenced by other regimes.
What we adopt:
Hazardous vs non-hazardous classification and hazardous properties (HP codes).
Method mapping: EU R-operations → “Recovered”; D-operations → “Disposed.”
Hierarchy language to inform treatment method labelling and quality checks.
U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (EPA overview)
Why it matters: Governs U.S. waste generation, handling, and disposal; sets strict hazardous waste controls (listed vs characteristic wastes).
What we adopt:
Alignment for U.S. issuers on hazardous determinations and treatment method definitions.
Crosswalks between RCRA categories and our Waste Type + Waste Management Method dimensions.
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal
Why it matters: Global reference for hazardous waste classification and transboundary controls; influences national lists/annexes.
What we adopt:
Supporting reference for hazardous category interpretation when company disclosures cite Basel annexes.
Terminology consistency for international reporters.
IAEA Safety Standards (radioactive waste)
Why it matters: Radioactive waste is governed separately; we include it as a distinct Waste Type with unique regulatory context.
What we adopt:
Use of “radioactive waste” as a discrete category; we do not re-map it into hazardous/non-hazardous.
Handling notes for disclosures citing national nuclear authorities.
Related Reporting Frameworks & Standards
Unlike greenhouse gas emissions reporting, which benefits from a globally recognized standard like the GHG Protocol, waste reporting remains decentralized, with no single dominant global framework. However, several key standards provide clear guidance for companies seeking to quantify, manage, and disclose their waste-related impacts. Note that these frameworks do not define our ground truth, but they guide field design, coverage expectations, and help users connect our metrics to reporting and investment workflows.
GRI 306: Waste 2020
Relevance: Most widely adopted corporate waste disclosure framework.
How we align: Field structure mirrors GRI emphasis on waste generated and management (diverted vs directed to disposal); supports mapping to GRI 306-3/4/5.
ESRS E5: Resource Use and Circular Economy (CSRD)
Relevance: EU-mandated disclosures on waste generation, hazardous waste, and resource recovery.
How we align: Our Recovered/Disposed method dimension and hazardous split support ESRS E5 datapoints and KPIs.
SFDR Principal Adverse Impacts (PAIs)
Relevance: Requires investors to report tonnes of hazardous waste and radioactive waste generated by investee companies.
How we align: Directly supported by our Total Hazardous Waste Generated and Total Radioactive Waste Generated metrics.
SASB (now under IFRS Foundation)
Relevance: Industry-specific metrics (e.g., hazardous waste intensity, treatment disclosures) used by many public filers.
How we align: Sector tagging enables users to filter our metrics for SASB-relevant topics across industries.
TNFD (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures)
Relevance: Positions waste as a pressure on nature; calls for disclosure of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and management routes.
How we align: Our dimension model (Type × Method) maps cleanly to TNFD disclosure elements and supports nature-risk analysis.
Takeaway:
You can map our metrics directly to GRI 306, ESRS E5, SFDR PAIs, SASB industry metrics, and TNFD disclosures.
You get jurisdiction-aware definitions that reflect how companies actually report.
You retain full traceability to the underlying source, enabling audit-grade use in compliance, benchmarking, and investment workflows.