In classical “triple bottom line” sustainability reporting, there have not been any clear guidelines on how companies should report on their environmental footprint. Consequently, the transparency in the environmental reporting has been low, which has resulted in greenwashing. To create reliable reporting and increase the proportion of green loans and green investments, the EU introduced the classification system EU Taxonomy in 2021. The new framework has stricter requirements on companies as they are now obligated to report on specific guidelines. These guidelines will also allow stakeholders to determine how sustainable a company is. Since the EU Taxonomy was recently launched, there has been a knowledge gap in how companies experience the framework. Also, what measures should be considered in the design of the EU Taxonomy for the implementation to be as successful as possible, based on the premise that companies should make their business model as sustainable as possible. This semi-structured interview study examines how Swedish companies experience the EU Taxonomy. The researchers interviewed eight Swedish stakeholders with great insights into the area, from the manufacturing industry (1), the Real Estate Industry (2), the Swedish Corporate Business Organizations (1), the Real Estate Industry Organizations (2), and Auditing Firms (2). The researchers could conclude that being classified as sustainable in the EU Taxonomy does not necessarily mean a company is sustainable from a scientific point of view. Nevertheless, it can be an answer to political interests. The interviewees also felt it was challenging to interpret and understand the framework and that there were necessary clarifications. Further, the EU will have to account for several activities from each industry so that companies can report on their total ecological footprint. Finally, changes in the delegated acts are mandatory for the EU taxonomy to be a successful policy instrument. / I klassisk “triple bottom line” rapportering har det inte funnits några tydliga riktlinjer för hur företag ska rapportera om sitt ekologiska avtryck. Som en följd av detta, har transparensen i hållbarhetsredovisningen varit låg, vilket har resulterat i greenwashing. I syfte att skapa mer tillförlitlig rapportering och öka andelen gröna lån och investeringar, infördes 2021 klassificeringssystemet EU Taxonomin. Det nya ramverket har skapat nya krav på företag då de nu är skyldiga att rapportera på specifika miljöbelastande aktiviteter. Dessa riktlinjer ska dessutom kunna utgöra hur hållbara de rapporterande bolagen är. Eftersom EU Taxonomin nyligen har lanserats, fanns det en kunskapslucka för hur företag upplever ramverket. Även vilka åtgärder som bör övervägas i utformningen av EU-taxonomin för att implementeringen ska bli så framgångsrik som möjligt, utifrån utgångspunkten att företag ska göra sin affärsmodell så hållbar som möjligt. Med detta i åtanke utvecklades denna semistrukturerade intervjustudie som ämnar att undersöka hur svenska företag ser på EU Taxonomin. Forskarna har intervjuat åtta aktörer från svenska: tillverkningsindustrin (1), fastighetsbranschen (2), näringslivet (1), medlemsorganisationer inom fastighetsbranschen (2) och revisionsbyråer (2). Det forskarna kunde konstatera är att det som klassas som hållbart i EU Taxonomin, inte nödvändigtvis ur ett teknikneutral och vetenskapligt perspektiv är hållbart, utan är ett svar på ett politiskt intresse. Aktörerna upplever dessutom att ramverket är svårt att förstå och att det därför är nödvändigt med förtydningar. Till sist kommer även EU behöva ta fler aktiviteter från de respektive branscherna i åtanke i de delegerade akterna, för att företag ska kunna redovisa för sitt totala ekologiska fotavtryck. Slutligen är ändringar i de delegerade akterna obligatoriska för att EU Taxonomin ska kunna bli ett framgångsrikt policyinstrument.

With the backdrop of newly admitted restrictive asylum policies in Sweden, a new law that made temporary residence permits available for studies in upper secondary school was adopted in 2018. This study aims to analyze how grassroot bureaucrats experience the implementation and result of the so called “upper secondary school act” (2018:755). The use of a possible discression and the laws’ policy documents from the grassroot bureaucrats’ perspective is the focus of the analysis. The study is based on 10 semi-structured interviews with teachers that have implemented the law in smaller Swedish municipalities. The analysis uses qualitative text analysis combined with the theoretical framework “State agent or citizen agent: two narratives of discretion” (Maynard Moody & Musheno, 2000). The study finds that the implementing teachers mainly makes decisions based on enabling a permanent residence permit for the students both in using their discression and handling the policy documents. The teachers describe the law as strict in many aspects but also helpful to students. They teachers emphasize their hard work, flexibility, cooperation with each other and with the non-profit civil society in creating a good implementation. The theoretical citizen agent narrative in contrast to the state agent narrative (Maynard Moody & Musheno, 2000, 348-356) mainly conforms with the interviews on these points, except for the cooperation with the non-profit civil society, which may need more exploration.