I think it would be extremely difficult to come up with a taxonomy. I'm not sure who is the supreme being to decide which things are material and which are not, and which ones to weight and which ones to not.
This is how ESG has become such a problem. Certain industries—let's say defence—were said to be bad, and now they're said to be good. This is because our weight on the different criteria will change over time.
Most recently, I've joined the sustainability advisory council of Novo Nordisk, which has come up with these weight-loss drugs. We've decided to send some of these drugs to developing countries, even though this leads to less revenue for us. Now, that is bad for our carbon footprint, because it means shipping these drugs to developing countries, yet there's a huge benefit in terms of reducing obesity. Actually, if you reduce obesity, then you can reduce climate change down the line, because if people don't develop diabetes, then they don't need to go to a hospital for dialysis three times a week.
Any taxonomy is typically going to ignore many of these criteria. It's really difficult to know where the bright line is to say what's good or what's bad. I would not like to be the regulator that claims that it has all of the knowledge to rule on these complicated issues.