Beyond the launch pad: exploring sustainability and accountability practices of space companies

Space exploration is defined as “investigation, by means of crewed and uncrewed spacecraft, of the reaches of the universe beyond Earth’s atmosphere and the use of the information so gained to increase knowledge of the cosmos and benefit humanity” (Logsdon, 2024). It is a part of the “third age” of discovery which focuses on “the extremities of the planet and its surroundings and encounters with ‘new worlds’ which were ‘previously uninhabited or visited by humans’” (Damjanov, 2018, p. 19). Space exploration is currently experiencing a dynamic phase worldwide, fuelled by the emergence of new space companies and shaped by significant technological advancements (Heitor et al., 2024). The number of countries investing in space activities continues to rise (Denis et al., 2020; Tucker and Alewine, 2021) and several private space companies have ventured into this traditionally public domain, creating diverse business opportunities.

For a long time, space-related endeavours were primarily managed by governmental bodies like National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and European Space Agency (ESA), as well as military institutions. These efforts often served strategic functions – demonstrating national strength, advancing geopolitical standing, supporting defense and security objectives and driving economic growth (Martin and Beaudry, 2015; Paikowsky, 2017). However, starting in the 1990s, this landscape began to shift. Many countries started to scale back the funding allocated to space programmes due to growing concerns over public debt and fiscal constraints (Weinzierl, 2018). In response, governments promoted the rise of private-sector involvement in space by offering commercial incentives and enacting supportive regulatory frameworks (Anderson, 2013; Denis et al., 2020). This led to the emergence of innovative technologies and business models shaping what is now known as the “New Space” economy (Pomeroy et al., 2019; Parrella et al., 2022). The New Space Economy is “a global trend encompassing an emerging investment philosophy and a series of technological advancements leading to the development of a private space industry largely driven by commercial motivations” (De Concini and Toth, 2019, p. 7). This sector reached an estimated value of $460bn in 2022 and could potentially grow to $1tn by 2030 (McKinsey, 2023).

Historically, space exploration has served as a catalyst for expanding our understanding of Earth and the cosmos while driving the development of new materials and technologies with applications both in space and on our planet (Wooten and Tang, 2018). Nowadays, it seems to have the potential to be one of the major contributors to future growth on our planet (Chrysaki, 2020; Miraux et al., 2022). However, it also has several significant and systemic social and environmental impacts. In fact, space exploration can threaten humanity and Earth with pollution, destruction of protected natural sites and nuclear or biological contamination (Weinzierl, 2018; Argentiero and Falcone, 2020; Ricciardi et al., 2022).

Space exploration is not only a frontier of technological and economic advancement but also a source of complex ecological and social challenges. Unlike other industries, its impacts extend across multiple ecosystems on Earth and into the orbital environment, with potentially irreversible consequences. Scholars and observers have expressed concerns that may reproduce, or even exacerbate, existing terrestrial inequities and colonial dynamics in extraterrestrial contexts (Sutch and Roberts, 2019). As space actors harness resources and strategic advantages from the space environment, questions arise about their accountability for the consequences of their actions on a planetary and interplanetary scale (Ayetey, 2020). Yet, current governance mechanisms and reporting standards remain fragmented and largely voluntary, creating a regulatory vacuum in which powerful actors operate (Di Tullio et al., 2023). This raises critical questions about transparency, accountability and the role of accounting in ensuring that the benefits of space exploration do not come at the expense of environmental degradation or social harm (Tucker and Alewine, 2021; Freeland and Ireland-Piper, 2022). Investigating how space companies disclose and manage their impacts is therefore urgent to addresses the accountability deficit in a sector with high global visibility and risk. Despite its growing relevance, accounting research on space exploration remains in its infancy (Tucker and Alewine, 2021; Di Tullio et al., 2023). The sector’s high levels of complexity, uncertainty and global risk create a demand for novel conceptual and methodological approaches that go beyond conventional accounting paradigms (Alewine, 2020; Modell, 2023). This article responds to that call by examining the reporting practices of governmental agencies and private companies involved in space exploration, adopting an ecological emancipatory accounting perspective (Maroun and Atkins, 2018, 2020). It emphasises the critical role of accounting and accountability in measuring and reporting social and environmental impacts, thereby connecting actions, decisions and responsibilities. This study also contributes to the literature on ecological emancipatory accounting (Apostol, 2015; Atkins et al., 2023) by testing its application in a novel and underexplored domain. Moreover, it provides practical insights for policymakers, regulators and stakeholders seeking to design accountability mechanisms for the New Space Economy. Accordingly, it examines how governmental and private space actors identify, mitigate and report their social and environmental impacts, and assesses the emancipatory potential of their accounting practices. The analysis draws on financial and non-financial reports from key public and private space organisations involved in the launch service segment across multiple countries and continents, including the USA, Russia, China, Europe, India and New Zealand.

The article is structured as follows. Section 2 frames the New Space Economy and identifies sustainability and accountability issues associated with it for public and private space actors. Section 3 explains the ecological emancipatory accounting perspective and the relative framework. Section 4 outlines the methods of data collection and analysis through the lens of ecological emancipatory accounting. Section 5 presents the research findings, which are then discussed in Section 6. Some concluding remarks and suggestions for future research are provided in Section 7.

The concept of the Space Economy encompasses the entire space value chain, which is typically divided into two segments: upstream and downstream. The upstream segment includes activities related to the development of space infrastructure, such as research and development, satellite manufacturing and launch services. In contrast, the downstream segment leverages the technologies and outputs of the upstream to deliver innovative services and applications based on space data and capabilities (Di Ciaccio et al., 2018; De Concini and Toth, 2019).

Historically, public actors were responsible for all aspects of space exploration and development, including R&D, infrastructure construction and operations (Martin and Beaudry, 2015; Barbaroux, 2016). In this context – referred as the Old Space Economy – the industry was driven primarily by institutional demand rather than commercial market forces (Hiriart and Saleh, 2010). The situation began to shift in the 1990s, when many governments cut budgets allocated to space agencies and related activities due to the need to limit and reduced public spending (Weinzierl, 2018). To sustain leadership and competitiveness in the space sector, several state actors started promoting the emergence of private space companies through commercial incentives and regulatory support (Kim, 2019; Denis et al., 2020). Technological advances and commercial breakthroughs subsequently transformed both the actors and business models in the space sector. These changes marked the transition from the Old Space Economy to the New Space Economy. New private entrants brought competition, which led to reduced production costs, faster manufacturing processes and the introduction of new technologies and business opportunities.

For decades, launch services were considered part of nations’ strategic access to space. Governments owned the spaceports and managed the launch operations, while private companies manufactured the launch vehicles under government contracts (Canis, 2016). Since the early 2000s, growing demand for launch services has attracted the interest of billionaire entrepreneurs who founded their own space launch companies. These companies have contributed to reducing the size and mass satellites, lowering rocket launch costs and even constructing their own spaceports (Canis, 2016; Kim, 2019). In recent decades, in most countries, public and private actors have increasingly collaborated on space activities and missions across countries and continents (Kee and Forrer, 2008; King et al., 2023). Notably, many government space agencies now outsource launch services, allowing private companies to own launch vehicles, manage operations and execute satellite and rocket launches.

The number of launches has risen globally in recent years, reflecting the expansion of the Space Economy. In countries such as the USA, New Zealand, and members of the European Union, collaborations between government agencies and private companies are frequent and effective. In contrast, space activities in India, Russia and China remain predominantly state-funded and executed by national space agencies. Specifically, Russia and India continue to follow a state-centric model, operating, respectively, through the state corporation Roscosmos and the Indian Space Research Organisation (Mani et al., 2023; Vidal and Privalov, 2023). Meanwhile, China’s commercial space industry is still in its early stages, and efforts to foster collaboration between the China National Space Administration and private companies face significant challenges (Rome, 2023).

Despite this rapid growth, the New Space Economy remains underexplored from a sustainability and accountability perspective. Much of the current debate emphasises technological innovation, economic opportunities and geopolitical competition, while little attention is given to the social and environmental consequences of space activities. In particular, there is limited understanding of how space companies recognise and report the ecological and social impacts of their operations, and whether such reporting fulfils emancipatory functions by exposing negative effects, giving voice to affected communities and ecosystems and promoting long-term planetary stewardship. This gap highlights the need for accounting research to investigate the accountability practices of space actors and to evaluate their potential for advancing sustainable and ethical space governance.

Accountability has long been recognised as a cornerstone of both public and private sectors (Dillard and Vinnari, 2019). Initially confined to its accounting function, accountability conveys an image of transparency and trustworthiness (Bovens, 2007). More specifically, accountability can be defined as “a relationship in which people are required to explain and take responsibility for their actions” (Sinclair, 1995, p. 220). It encompasses three interrelated aspects: compliance, in the sense of being held to account; transparency, in the sense of giving an account; and responsiveness, in the sense of taking account (AccountAbility, 2004). Consequently, accountability should be regarded as the primary objective of any accounting system (Dillard and Vinnari, 2019).

In recent decades, growing societal awareness of sustainability challenges has intensified demands for organisations to disclose their environmental and social impacts (Adler et al., 2017; Hassan et al., 2020). This has led to the expansion of non-financial reporting practices, often framed as mechanisms to enhance transparency and build trust (Roberts, 2009). Transparency may indeed function as an antidote to secrecy and as a driver of improved accountability (O’Neill, 2006; Ferry and Eckersley, 2015). However, it also entails inherent limitation: in some cases, it can foster a “box-ticking” approach in which organisations release vast amounts of raw data rather than meaningful information (Ferry et al., 2015). As Roberts (2009) pointed out, transparency simultaneously promises and threatens revelation; it may even weaken accountability by reducing it to the passive act of disclosure. Accountability, therefore, cannot be equated with full transparency, which remains unattainable ideal. To overcome such shortcoming, Roberts (2009) called for “intelligent accountability”, based on continuous and active engagement over time. This approach privileges listening, questioning and dialogue, thereby counteracting the tendency to deskill communication. Rather than offering periodic snapshots, intelligent accountability entails assessing commitments against outcomes, making it more difficult to manipulate results. In this perspective, accountability requires dialogue and negotiation, where the burden of compromise between conflicting interests is shared among all actors involved. In more complex relationships, such dialogue should expand decision-making processes to include multiple voices and distribute responsibility for outcomes (Messner, 2009). Accountability, in this context, depends on appropriate information flow and must provide stakeholders with relevant and critical performance information (Mulgan, 2000; Page, 2004).

Applied to sustainability, social and environmental accountability requires organisations to recognise their responsibilities for ecological and social impacts, communicate them to diverse stakeholders and implement measures to mitigate harm (Gray, 2007; Bebbington and Larrinaga, 2014). Companies, given their concentration of resources and influence, are increasingly seen as critical actors in addressing global sustainability challenges (Gray, 2010). Their responsibilities towards internal and external stakeholders derive from a combination of legal requirements, voluntary commitments and the broader social contract and are supported by accounting and reporting practices (Gray et al., 1988). This has strengthened the emphasis on both corporate and individual responsibility for social and environmental impacts, positioning accounting as a critical tool for addressing the challenges of sustainable development (Gray et al., 1988; Gray, 2007; Bebbington and Larrinaga, 2014). Accordingly, institutional response to demands for social and environmental accountability typically manifest as amendments to existing accounting and reporting frameworks (Dillard and Vinnari, 2019; Hassan et al., 2020). Nonetheless, accounting research consistently highlights the limited willingness of companies to fundamentally transform their practices (Bebbington et al., 2008, 2020). In this regard, Hirsh (2022) argues that there should be a renewed and active corporate engagement in addressing global social and environmental challenges, stressing the crucial role of private sector actors in shaping the rules of the game and reinforcing their social and environmental accountability.

Space exploration extends human presence and activities beyond Earth by launching satellites, and manned and unmanned rockets (Damjanov, 2018). It yields economic, social and environmental benefits (Weinzierl, 2018; Friel, 2019). In fact, space exploration has the potential to help rebalance the supply and demand equation on Earth, as space and the solar system harbour diverse resources and energy that might be exploitable (Crawford, 2016; Friel, 2019). Earth observation satellites provide valuable data, enhancing awareness of environmental and social issues such as climate change and air pollution, and facilitating concrete actions for their sustainable and effective management (Florio et al., 2024). Satellite systems can ensure resilient communication for strategic and tactical forces during conflicts, as demonstrated by the support provided to Ukraine during the 2022 war, which proved to be a lifeline for many areas of the country (Anderson, 2023). Therefore, space exploration holds emotional appeal and is believed to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (McElroy, 2023). However, concerns have been raised regarding its economic, environmental and social sustainability.

From an economic perspective, although space exploration presents a substantial growth opportunity, the associated costs are high, and the returns are uncertain, particularly for high-risk, long-term and primarily curiosity-driven scientific projects, with uncertain economic outcomes (Modell, 2023; Florio et al., 2024). Therefore, many private space companies may be evaluated based on expectations, potential business prospects and future activities, such as launch promises, rather than on concrete financial assessment (Kim, 2019; Modell, 2023). Furthermore, several activities related to space exploration are incredibly challenging, subject to numerous variables and require an extremely small margin for error, as exemplified by launch and re-entry operations for rockets (Vittori et al., 2024).

These launch activities generate various environmental impacts, not only during their use or disposal phase but also during their production (Wilson et al., 2022; McElroy, 2023). Manufacturing space hardware is an energy and resource-intensive process. The launch phase contributes to ozone layer depletion and the release of pollutants including toxic compounds (Ross and Vedda, 2018; Kokkinakis and Drikakis, 2022). In addition, sonic booms produced during launch and re-entry operations can harm wildlife (Sizov, 2017). Near launch sites, toxic remnants from propellant accumulate after repeated launches, often exceeding safe concentration for life, regardless of launch success or failure (Wilson et al., 2022; McElroy, 2023). In the event of a launch failure, hundreds of tons of rocket fuel and oxidizer are released into the soil and water; even successful launches leave approximately 9% of unused propellant in discarded rocket stages that fall back to Earth’s surface (McElroy, 2023).

One of the primary adverse effects of space activities is the generation of space debris. It consists of non-functional satellites, remnants of launch vehicles, collisions and spacecraft explosions (Durrieu and Nelson, 2013) that remain in orbit for extended periods, potentially transforming Earth’s orbits into a debris belt unsuitable for further space activities (Wooten and Tang, 2018; Freeland and Ireland-Piper, 2022). The space debris problem is still not addressed and evolved into a “classic example of the tragedy of the commons” (Ross and Vedda, 2018, p. 2). The result is that, given that Earth’s orbital space environment is a finite resource, there is an increased risk of collisions and interference with space operations. Moreover, space debris have also implications for Earth as billions of people are potentially at risk from space junk hitting Earth (Tingley, 2022; King et al., 2023). Several space debris end up in the oceans in remote areas of the Earth. For example, there is an area in the Pacific Ocean known as “Spacecraft Cemetery” where the remnants of numerous spacecraft have been intentionally directed (Häder, 2021). Experts are alarming about the regularity of this practice and its consequences for environmental pollution (De Lucia and Iavicoli, 2019). Moreover, the proliferation of space debris could render operations more hazardous, and less cost-efficient, and jeopardise the long-term sustainability of space activities (Mallowan et al., 2021; Martinez, 2021).

Space exploration poses additional risks beyond environmental impacts. Accidental or intentional release of microorganisms during space missions could result in biological contamination of celestial bodies like Mars (Ricciardi et al., 2022). This contamination could also endanger researchers and astronauts, potentially leading to infections or fatalities (Kminek, 2016). Moreover, several fatal accidents have occurred during spaceflight training or testing, as well as due to rocket explosions, involving both astronauts and non-astronauts (Guibaud et al., 2022; Newman and Caplan, 2022). However, astronauts also face short and long-term health risks from space flights, including muscular and spinal changes due to weightlessness, as well as psychological effects from fatigue, sleep deprivation, isolation and operational stressors like extra-vehicular activities and scientific experiments (Mesko, 2018). One or more of these harmful health effects may arise during future multi-year space exploration missions beyond LEO (King et al., 2023).

The ethical landscape of the New Space Economy is complicated by the accountability challenges posed by the partnerships between public and private companies (Grossi and Steccolini, 2014). The accountability dynamics and logic differ between public and private companies (Gisch et al., 2023). Public sector organisations are accountable to the national community and involve relationships between politicians, citizens and public managers (Parker and Gould, 1999; Almquist et al., 2013). In contrast, private sector operates to create economic value, and their accountability primarily revolves around satisfying shareholders’ demands for information regarding financial performance. In these cases, it is necessary to reconcile two distinct sets of interests and logics of accountability: the public one, which emphasises democratic principles and accountability to society at large, and the private one, which prioritises profit motives and the interests of a narrower stakeholder group (Grossi et al., 2021; Gisch et al., 2023).

These challenges are exacerbated by an outdated and inadequate regulatory framework that fails to address the presence of new actors and commercial objectives within the New Space Economy. Moreover, there is a notable absence of adequate mechanisms to hold companies accountable for the social and environmental impacts of their activities on the global commons (Wooten and Tang, 2018; Tucker and Alewine, 2021; Freeland and Ireland-Piper, 2022). In particular, the lack of binding international standards implies that private actors may face sanctions for violations at the discretion of states. States are confronted with a choice: either fulfil their role in enforcing regulations and safeguarding environmental and social welfare or refrain from imposing sanctions to promote their domestic space industry. In many instances, they opt for the latter (Ayetey, 2020; Delannon and Raufflet, 2021). Furthermore, recent initiatives and regulatory efforts are emerging for space sustainability (e.g. the COPUOS Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines). However, these initiatives are often focused on specific issues (e.g. space debris) or suffer from the limitation of being voluntary (Martinez, 2021). Thus, ensuring the safety and sustainability of space activities is paramount.

Space companies must prioritise sustainable practices to mitigate their impact on both Earth and space, as the consequences could be irreversible. Any irresponsible behaviour by these companies makes them accountable not only to the present but also to future generations (Chrysaki, 2020; Miraux et al., 2022). It is imperative to address these social and environmental concerns, especially considering the anticipated increase in space exploration missions and launches due to the advancements in the space industry (Kokkinakis and Drikakis, 2022). According to Di Tullio et al. (2023), social and environmental accounting holds significant potential for enhancing accountability in space activities. In this study, the social and environmental accounting and accountability practices of public and private space companies are investigated by using ecological emancipatory accounting as a theoretical perspective.

In the realm of space exploration, private and governmental organisations are encountering mounting pressure from various stakeholders, including scientists, sustainability movements and local communities, to adopt sustainable practices (Delannon and Raufflet, 2021; Varughese et al., 2023). These practices are aimed not only at preserving the integrity of the space environment but also at safeguarding Earth’s ecosystems. In addition, there is a growing demand for greater transparency and accountability regarding their social and environmental impacts. Integrating a sustainability perspective into space exploration activities is paramount to bridging the gap between the idealised representation of the world constructed by space-related sciences and technologies, and the tangible reality experienced by humanity and the planet (Arnould, 2019; McElroy, 2023). To this end, it becomes imperative for organisations engaged in space exploration to document and report their sustainability efforts comprehensively. In response to these pressures, space companies are expected to disclose detailed information on their social and environmental impacts and initiatives for ecosystem protection and restoration.

In this context, this paper investigates whether and how space companies identify, mitigate and report the social and environmental impacts for which they are responsible and the extent to which such accounting is emancipatory. It thus poses the following research question:

To address the research question, this paper uses an ecological emancipatory accounting lens to assess the reporting practice of space companies regarding social and environmental impacts.

In recent decades, organisations of all kinds have been tasked with taking on broader responsibilities beyond mere profitability (Gray et al., 1996; de Villiers and Van Staden, 2010). This has led to modifications in traditional accounting and accountability methods to incorporate consideration for nature and society (Gray et al., 1988; Adler et al., 2017; Dillard and Vinnari, 2019). The realm of financial record-keeping has thus expanded to encompass social and environmental factors, paving the way for what Gallhofer and Haslam (2005, p. 7) refer to as “new visions of accounting”.

In the contemporary landscape, accounting is recognised as more than just a technical function. It is also a social and moral practice aimed at ensuring “the sustainable utilisation of resources and proper accountability to stakeholders to enable the flourishing of organisations, people and nature” (Carnegie et al., 2022, p. 69). In fact, accounting play a key role in the alignment of corporate perspectives on social and environmental responsibilities with those of stakeholders, bridging the gap between different realities (Atkins and McBride, 2023). By generating information that enhances organisations’ and stakeholders’ awareness of emerging social and environmental risks, accounting serves as a catalyst for substantial action (Maroun and Atkins, 2018; Gallhofer and Haslam, 2019). Therefore, accounting has the potential to drive positive social change (Carnegie et al., 2021, 2022).

To ensure that accounting contributes effectively to addressing today’s significant social and environmental challenges, it must become a transformative and emancipatory mechanism (Carnegie et al., 2022; Atkins et al., 2023). In this context, accounting can be emancipatory when it “supports the improvement of conditions for individuals or communities who have a legitimate claim to such improvement” (Hackett and Jansky, 2023, p. 3). In particular, emancipatory accounting is expected to render “business practices visible, exposing and criticising negative aspects of business structures, giving a voice to marginalised and underrepresented groups, facilitating democratic dialogue and being a catalyst for societal change” (Apostol, 2015, p. 231). This approach challenges the conventional emphasis on capital markets and investors, advocating instead for a plural understanding of society and accounting that embraces diverse interests (Martinez and Himick, 2023).

An emancipatory form of accounting is ecological accounting, which emphasises change and transformation, with the goal of “restoring nature, reviving biodiversity, conserving species and enhancing ecological systems” (Atkins et al., 2023, p. 1478). It implies the development of an accounting that includes various forms, cultures, genders and species (Atkins et al., 2023; Maione et al., 2024) and serves as a means of reconceptualising corporate accountabilities for social and environmental dimensions, shedding light on the interconnectedness between humans, organisations and non-human ecosystems (Birkin, 2003; Russell et al., 2017; Bebbington and Rubin, 2022).

According to Maroun and Atkins (2020), promoting positive change does not necessarily require a complete reconfiguration of accounting and accountability systems. Instead, they suggest that existing reporting mechanisms should be revised to account for the social and environmental impacts. From an ecological accounting perspective, the qualitative style of reporting can be complemented by quantitative and financial measures to provide a more detailed account of the organisation’s impact on the planet and society (Maroun and Atkins, 2020). In particular, companies can also detail and quantify the habitats lost or restored and changes in the levels of environmental risks (Jones, 2010; Hassan et al., 2020; Maione et al., 2024). As a result, the practice of numbering and monetising these aspects acts to “naturalise” conceptual, instrumental and ethical relations with nature and society (Sullivan and Hannis, 2017). This revised reporting should offer a framework for recognising these risks and impacts, providing a comprehensive overview of mitigation efforts, detailing the outcomes of these initiatives and continuously evaluating performance against predefined targets (Atkins and Maroun, 2018; Maroun and Atkins, 2020). This model can seamlessly integrate into organisations’ current corporate reporting processes and following it, companies should provide a review of their impacts and risks, the actions taken to remedy these risks, their successes and failures and a reconsideration of their strategy (Atkins et al., 2016; Maroun and Atkins, 2020).

The academic literature emphasised the importance of gaining a deeper understanding of how organisations can effectively identify, mitigate and disclose their social and environmental impacts, as well as comprehend the intricate connections between their actions, decisions and responsibilities on social and environmental challenges (Serafeim, 2020; Tweedie, 2023). However, there remains a notable absence of specific guidance and framework on how businesses can report on their efforts to prevent and restore their social and environmental impacts, as the existing ones are based on neoliberal policies, which often emphasise financial mechanisms and market-based solutions (Maroun and Atkins, 2018; Ohlinger and Lehner, 2025). Accounting academics can help systematise data in support of environmental strategies and policies to link the economic and natural worlds and promote uniformity and reliability in sustainability reporting (Maione et al., 2024). Furthermore, they must not ignore the possibility that companies may be able to break away from “business as usual” and pursue reporting for reasons other than impression and reputation management (Zhao and Atkins, 2021).

We adapted the frameworks proposed by Maroun and Atkins (2018, 2020) to investigate how space actors identify, mitigate and report social and environmental impacts using an ecological emancipatory accounting lens. The framework is composed of three elements (Table 1).

The starting point is the “socio-ecological accounting context”. Companies have to record the socio-ecological systems affected by their business model, providing details on their sizes and locations (Maroun and Atkins, 2018). Given the long-term effects of space launches, the record should consider not only the current but also potential future social and environmental impacts on Earth and space. For instance, a satellite launched today could collide with other objects in the future, potentially generating debris. Therefore, this first element of the framework serves to highlight to stakeholders the significance of certain socio-ecological systems and illustrates that companies are at least cognizant of the environmental and social impact of their activities (Maroun and Atkins, 2018).

The second element is called “Action-focused reporting and partnership” and refers to the steps taken by management to mitigate impacts and risks (Maroun and Atkins, 2020). The financial capital allocated to identify, manage and report on risks and impacts, combatting habitat destruction and restoring ecosystems adversely affected by corporate activities must also be disclosed (Maroun and Atkins, 2020). In fact, for accounting to be emancipatory, it must explain how prevention policy translates into specific actions to reverse the trends and outcomes of any conservation, mitigation or restoration (Gallhofer et al., 2015; Maroun and Atkins, 2018). Moreover, companies can include engagement with key stakeholders, and broader partnerships formed to combat these impacts.

The last element is “Analysis” which refers to a detailed analysis of the successes and failures of actions taken to combat the risks or reduce impacts and should be used to inform changes to business processes and conservation initiatives (Maroun and Atkins, 2018; Atkins and Atkins, 2019).

These three elements were used as a reference to analyse the content of reports from governmental agencies and private companies operating in the launch service segment.

This study analyses financial and non-financial reports of governmental agencies and private companies operating in the launch service segment in several countries. Space exploration typically begins with the launch of manned or unmanned rockets and launch service activities are among the activities with the highest social and environmental impact in this sector (Wilson et al., 2022; McElroy, 2023). This paper aims to determine whether these governmental and private companies involved in the New Space Economy disclose to the general public how they consider, mitigate and report the social and environmental impacts of their activities.

The most active countries and continents in space launches include the USA, Russia, China, Europe, India and New Zealand (McDowell, 2024). China, Russia and India conduct their launch through their respective national space agencies and companies (Mani et al., 2023; Rome, 2023; Vidal and Privalov, 2023). In the USA, NASA procures launch services through the NASA Launch Services II (NLS II) contract, which is currently awarded to United Launch Alliance, Blue Origin, SpaceX and Northrop Grumman Space Systems. In Europe, space launches are a result of collaboration among public space companies, the ESA, the French national space agency Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES) and private companies ArianeGroup and Avio (Delannon and Raufflet, 2021). The involvement of New Zealand in space exploration is primarily driven by commercial activity (Varughese et al., 2023). This led to the establishment of the New Zealand Space Agency in 2016, spurred by a proposal from an American commercial launch company, Rocket Lab, to initiate commercial space launches (Deloitte, 2019; Scott, 2020).

Searches were primarily conducted manually on the official websites of selected organisations (with the websites accessed in their English-language versions) and then expanded to the Web in general to retrieve financial and non-financial reports spanning from 2017 to 2023. This timeframe reflects a period during which the number of launches grew exponentially across nearly all countries and continents (McDowell, 2024). Reports in English were selected regardless of their title, thus encompassing annual reports and duty of vigilance reports for financial reports, and variously named sustainability reports (such as Non-financial statements, CSR reports, ESG reports). However, an exception was made for NASA in the selection of non-financial reports. While NASA does not publish comprehensive sustainability reports covering the entire agency, it does release reports addressing specific sustainability aspects (i.e. Climate Adaptation Report) or individual units (i.e. Johnson Space Centre). Given the significant social and environmental impacts associated with launch activities and the vicinity of the launch site, sustainability reports related to Kennedy Space Centre (KSC) were also considered. This centre serves as the primary launch site for NASA and collaborating space companies.

The 57 selected reports were downloaded and imported into NVivo software for interpretive text analysis. It is important to note that some companies are not publicly traded and therefore not required to publish reports, and in certain cases, current geopolitical conditions may hinder access to websites and reports. Consequently, a total of 36 financial reports and 21 non-financial reports were retrieved, as detailed in Table 2.

The 57 reports were analysed through interpretive textual analysis (Laine, 2005; Tregidga and Milne, 2006), following a deductive coding scheme informed by the ecological emancipatory accounting framework (Maroun and Atkins, 2018, 2020). The framework provided three categories used as coding headings: (1) socio-ecological accounting context, (2) action-focused reporting and partnerships and (3) analysis of successes and failures. These categories guided the identification and selection of relevant sections from the reports.

The interpretive textual analysis involves an iterative process of readings and discussions among the authors to develop coherent interpretations and address subjective biases (Tregidga and Milne, 2006; Laine, 2009). The analysis proceeded in two stages.

In the first stage, the researcher individually conducted two close readings of each report. During these readings, sentences, paragraphs and sections referring to the categories above were identified, marked and coded in NVivo. This deductive coding, understood as a form of content analysis, constitutes a research technique that “entails a systematic reading of a body of texts” (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 3). As such, it provides a systematic and structured approach to text analysis, enabling both the interpretation of meaning and the description of phenomena (Schreier, 2012). In this study, coding was applied deductively, as the theoretical framework was translated into a coding stricture (Miles et al., 2013). The definitions of the three elements of the framework provided earlier served to standardise the coding process (Milne and Adler, 1999).

In the second stage, a research assistant who, like the researcher involved in the first stage, possessed coding expertise – one specialising in financial and non-financial reporting research and the other in space economy and associated social and environmental aspects, independently performed the same procedure. Both coders systematically identified and marked sentences aligned with the three categories. Then they engaged in discussions to reconcile divergent evaluations (Stage 3). Subsequently, the researcher conducted another round of reading and revised the original interpretation in light of these discussions. This iterative process ensured that subjective bias was minimised and that interpretations remained grounded in the data. Figure 1 illustrates the overall data analysis process.

This analysis intends to document the different types of currently reported socio-ecological impacts, information on prevention and mitigating efforts and analysis of the results of these efforts. Therefore, we avoid creating a frequency table of specific disclosure items.

The content analysis of 57 reports (36 financial and 21 non-financial) using the ecological emancipatory accounting framework offers valuable insights into the accounting and accountability practices of governmental and private space actors. It allows for an examination of how these organisations identify, mitigate and report their social and environmental impacts, shedding light on the emancipatory potential inherent in such accounting practices.

The analysis focused on the reporting practices of companies that made their report available. The data collection phase shows the absence of reports from six companies – including major private actors such as Blue Origin and SpaceX and public agencies such as Roscosmos and the China National Space Administration.

In the following sections, we will closely examine the content of financial and non-financial reports from governmental and private space companies by using the ecological emancipatory accounting framework.

Reporting on the “socio-ecological accounting context” highlights how companies frame their awareness of potential or actual social and environmental impacts linked to space exploration. Most space actors acknowledge impacts related to hazardous materials, emissions from launch activities and space debris, but their disclosures often remain tied to regulatory compliance rather than proactive accountability:

In addition, some space companies show that they have taken steps to assess the environmental impact of some of their assets:

These examples show that risks are acknowledged but framed in technical or compliance terms, without discussion of broader socio-ecological implications.

Launch failures represent another sensitive area where disclosure is selective. Although Rocket Lab (2022) reports the causes of two failed launches, the potential environmental consequences of such incidents are omitted:

This aligns with the literature that highlights how organisations frequently neutralise negative information and emphasise legitimacy-preserving narratives (Adler et al., 2017).

Among the primary concerns of governmental space agencies and private space companies is the social and environmental impact of space debris. This concern is linked to the fact that the increasing amount of space debris can jeopardise the long-term sustainability of space activities (Mallowan et al., 2021; Martinez, 2021), potentially also exerting significant economic consequences for the space sector:

Although it is well-known that debris eventually falls into remote areas of the oceans, for instance, the area in the Pacific Ocean known as the ‘Spacecraft Cemetery’ (De Lucia and Iavicoli, 2019; Häder, 2021), many space companies and agencies tend to downplay the potential impacts of re-entering fragments on marine life:

NASA and Northrop Grumman also provide detailed information on the specific areas where social and environmental impacts have occurred due to their space activities. In particular, NASA emphasises the impact of its activities near the KSC in Florida. Reports indicate the impact of debris disposal at sea, posing a threat to wildlife along Kennedy’s restricted beaches. Indeed, NASA underscores the proximity of its spaceport to the sensitive ecosystems of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and describes the characteristics of diverse wildlife species present in the area:

Northrop Grumman also identifies the areas where it is undertaking remediation activities to address environmental damage caused by its operations. For instance:

These reports provide precise information about the area and type of environmental damage caused by the company’s space activities. However, this case represents more of an exception than the rule.

After outlining the characteristics of the areas where space activities are carried out and identifying the social and environmental risks and impacts, companies must explain the actions they have taken or are taking to remedy these damages and reduce the impact of space activities, as well as the initiatives undertaken to protect populations or ecosystems.

Both private and governmental space companies describe strategies and initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, decrease resource consumption, combat biodiversity loss, protect marine species, mitigate negative effects on astronauts and reduce the creation of space debris. However, many of these efforts appear economically motivated, tied to cost savings, regulatory compliance or the commercial potential of new markets, rather than by a sustainable approach to space activities:

In contrast, CNES explicitly pledges to diminish resource consumption in space missions through initiatives such as eco-designing ground launch facilities and conducting life cycle analyses of orbital projects, as stated in their 2021 report:

Recognising the impact of launch activities on oceans and marine ecosystems, space companies are also implementing projects to combat biodiversity loss and protect marine species:

Regarding space debris, space actors outline various actions and projects aimed at reducing their creation and mitigating the risks of collisions which often involve collaboration with other entities in the space sector, governments, research centres or academic institutions:

Regarding the social impacts of space exploration activities, space companies are actively engaged in projects aimed at mitigating negative effects on astronauts, including considerations for future space tourists:

Thus, the development of projects aimed at mitigating the physical and psychological impact on space travellers may be associated with the rise of space tourism as a feasible business venture, prompting companies to innovate new technologies and services tailored specifically for orbital tourism (Friel, 2019; Di Tullio et al., 2023).

Interestingly, only NASA and Northrop Grumman provide annual reports detailing the locations of remediation and cleanup activities aimed at addressing negative impacts, often repeating the same information year after year. In particular, NASA provides detailed estimates and quantifications of the costs associated with these endeavours, outlining the nature of the cleanup efforts and associated liabilities:

Northrop Grumman provides context for sites where remediation efforts have been ongoing for many years to underscore its commitment to addressing environmental damage and describes innovative remediation techniques to reduce various types of contamination:

These two companies, operating in the USA, disclose this information also in their financial reports. This practice likely stems from the requirement for companies to prepare financial reports in accordance with the United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP).

It is essential to assess the success or failure of the actions and projects aimed at limiting or mitigating the social and environmental impacts. However, given the current limitations in reporting on the actions undertaken or planned to remedy damages and reduce the impacts of space activities, it is clear that we cannot expect private companies or space agencies to provide comprehensive analyses of the measures addressing the various types of impacts.

Concerning the “Analysis”, in both financial and non-financial reports of space actors, the focus is on the effectiveness of initiatives aimed at mitigating air pollution and environmental damage to certain areas. For these two impacts, qualitative descriptions are also complemented by quantitative and financial measures, and the information provided covers all three aspects of the ecological emancipatory accounting framework. Thus, a connection between their actions, decisions and responsibilities regarding social and environmental impacts is demonstrated (Serafeim, 2020; Tweedie, 2023).

In particular, there have been notable achievements in reducing GHG emissions, increasing the use of renewable energy sources and technological development projects aimed at reducing the environmental impact of individual launchers and optimising resource usage during their fabrication:

The analysis also addresses failures or incidents that have occurred during space activities to facilitate improvements:

Regarding remediation and clean-up projects, estimates of the costs are reviewed annually, reflecting changes in project scope and evolving understanding of environmental conditions:

Moreover, brief descriptions of the outcomes of these activities are provided in some cases, offering insights into the effectiveness of the remediation efforts:

In these cases, space accounting can be considered “emancipatory” in the sense that it makes business practices visible, highlighting negative aspects of space activities and “ecological”, emphasising the need and efforts to restore nature and conserve species. However, these reports frequently provide very generic descriptions of how they mitigate their impact, without adequately addressing whether animal species and natural environments have been affected by space activities and what their status and conditions are after remediation efforts.

A first element emerging from the data collection is the absence of reports from six companies. This finding highlights the lack of international regulations requiring companies to disclose their activities to stakeholders in a field characterised by significant economic, social and environmental impacts and it underscores persistent transparency and accountability challenges within the space sector (Tucker and Alewine, 2021; Freeland and Ireland-Piper, 2022). In the broader journey towards greater accountability of space actors and a transformation of accounting practices, the establishment of new international standards could play a key role. Traditionally, standards aim to generate progressive benefits through mechanisms associated with transparency (Hackett and Jansky, 2023). Within the space exploration context, governments and supranational institutions could modernise outdated regulatory frameworks to reflect the emergence of new space stakeholders, activities and business models. Thus far, supranational organisations, such as the United Nations, have issued guidelines to formalise a set of internationally accepted best practices for space sustainability and have provided measures and recommendations for space debris mitigation to ensure the long-term sustainability of space activities (United Nations, 2010; Martinez, 2021), However, these do not constitute a binding international standards – compliance remains voluntary and violations do not entail legal liability (Freeland and Ireland-Piper, 2022). Overcoming this regulatory vacuum requires strengthened international collaboration among governments, companies and civil society (Varughese et al., 2023).

Regarding the content of existing reports, the analysis shows that several companies disclose information on their social and environmental impacts (“Socio-ecological accounting context”). This may reflect growing pressure from stakeholders to adopt more sustainable practices (Delannon and Raufflet, 2021; Varughese et al., 2023). Nevertheless, organisations rarely address the broader socio-ecological implications of their activities. Many space-related operations should entail responsibility not only towards present societies but also future generations, considering both the well-being of the Earth’s environment and the sustainability of the space environment (Miraux et al., 2022; Ricciardi et al., 2022). In addition, reports often include detailed descriptions of species present in areas affected by space activities, which may indicate increased organisational awareness of social and environmental risks (Maroun and Atkins, 2018; Gallhofer and Haslam, 2019). In this sense, accounting holds the potential to drive positive social change (Carnegie et al., 2021, 2022). However, such disclosures are not accompanied by information on the actions taken to protect these species or ensure their survival.

With respect to measures implemented – or planned – to prevent, remedy or reduce the impacts of space activities (i.e. “Action-focused reporting and partnership”), findings are consistent with prior studies: disclosures tend to be generic, lacking specificity regarding performance against targets and are predominantly future-oriented rather than addressing current risks, past incidents or concrete remediation efforts (Adler et al., 2017; Atkins et al., 2018; Hassan et al., 2020). This echoes Bebbington et al. (2020) argument that sustainability reporting often remains entangled with business-as-usual economic logics, limiting its transformative potential. From an ecological emancipatory accounting perspective, reporting practices have been partially revised to identify species affected by corporate activities (Maroun and Atkins, 2020), yet they continue to lack a comprehensive portrayal of mitigation efforts (Atkins and Maroun, 2018; Maroun and Atkins, 2020). An exception concerns companies reporting under U.S. GAAP, which requires firms facing environmental liabilities to disclose loss contingencies as soon as litigation becomes probable or has commenced (Schiff et al., 2012; Schneider et al., 2017). Consequently, this regulatory obligation encourages the release of detailed information regarding negative social and environmental impacts, although only those associated with incurred costs. For instance, if a flight explosion scatters debris into unidentified locations, resulting in unquantified environmental consequences, such impacts remain unreported in financial statements because no remediation costs have been recognised.

Regarding the evaluation of the success or failure of initiatives aimed at limiting or mitigating the social and environmental impacts (“Analysis”), limitations identified in the previous sections become evident. Private space firms and space agencies provide insufficient detail on the actual effects of remediation efforts on animal species and natural habitats.

Taken together, these findings suggest that although space companies have begun to engage with socio-ecological issues, their disclosures remain predominantly descriptive, selective and often instrumental. From an ecological emancipatory accounting standpoint, current reporting practices only partially fulfil their potential to expose harmful aspects of business activities, amplify marginalised voices – including ecosystems – and foster democratic dialogue (Apostol, 2015). Therefore, space accounting has not yet fully expressed its emancipatory power. Significant progress is still required to ensure that both private and governmental space organisations become more accountable for the terrestrial and extra-terrestrial environments they influence, systematically identifying, mitigating and reporting the short- and long-term negative effects of space exploration.

This study examined the accounting and accountability practices of governmental and private space companies, focusing on the launch service segment worldwide. The absence of financial and non-financial reports from several key space actors highlights a critical gap in international regulations, emphasising the sector’s challenges in terms of transparency and accountability. Furthermore, the findings reveal a reporting landscape that is fragmented, selective and insufficiently emancipatory. Despite the different nature and accountability logic of governmental and private space actors (Grossi et al., 2021; Gisch et al., 2023), both adopt similar approaches to identify, mitigate and report their social and environmental impacts. Through the lens of emancipatory accounting, the study reveals that both governmental and private space organisations are aware of specific social and environmental impacts (e.g. space debris; sonic booms; physical and psychological conditions of space travel) and identify the socio-ecological context (e.g. beaches; protected areas). After all, the space exploration activities they undertake are the same and are often carried out in collaboration with each other. However, they often fail to provide a comprehensive account of measures taken to safeguard affected ecosystems. A myopic focus on ecological matters prevails, with efforts to mitigate social and environmental impacts presented generically, lacking clear performance metrics. Companies appear to use neutralisation techniques, controlling their disclosures and releasing only positive information (Adler et al., 2017) providing little information on the social and environmental impacts and risks of launch and mission failures. This aligns with prior research showing that companies frequently use disclosure as a legitimacy tool rather than as a basis for accountability (Adler et al., 2017; Hassan et al., 2020).

Current practices fall short of the ecological emancipatory ideal of giving voice to non-human actors and recognising their intrinsic value (Atkins et al., 2023). Instead, they reinforce instrumental logics that subordinate ecological concerns to economic or regulatory imperatives. Some actions appear to be driven by economic interests. Therefore, significant progress is still required for both private and governmental space actors to adopt more robust accountability practices that comprehensively address the long-term social and environmental impacts of space exploration, both on Earth and beyond.

By applying and adapting the ecological emancipatory accounting framework, proposed by Maroun and Atkins (2018, 2020), to the space sector, this study extends the scope of emancipatory accounting research into a novel and underexplored domain. The analysis demonstrates both the potential and the limitations of this framework when applied to activities with profound global ecological and social consequences. Specifically, the findings confirm that emancipatory accounting remains constrained when disclosures are instrumentalised for legitimacy purposes, rather than oriented towards giving voice to ecosystems, affected communities and future generations. The study thus contributes to debates on how emancipatory and ecological accounting can be mobilised beyond terrestrial industries, and it highlights the need for future research to integrate pluralistic perspectives and examine the institutional conditions that enable – or hinder – emancipatory practices. Furthermore, this study seeks to raise stakeholder awareness of the impacts of space activities on natural capital and resources (Maione et al., 2024).

This study underscores the growing societal demand for greater accountability from both governmental and private space actors regarding the social and environmental impacts of their activities. It highlights the importance of aligning space exploration with the principles of social justice, intergenerational responsibility and planetary stewardship (Heitor et al., 2024). The findings suggest that a more inclusive approach to accountability – one that recognises the needs of communities, ecosystems and future generations – is essential to ensure that the benefits of space exploration do not come at the expense of environmental degradation or social harm. Furthermore, the study advocates for stronger collaboration between public and private actors to reconcile their differing accountability logics, fostering a more holistic and ethical approach to space governance that balances the interests of people, planet and profitability. Therefore, to sum up, the various countries and organisations involved should align economic motives linked to commercial space activities with social and environmental concerns, ensuring the protection of the common good (Chrysaki, 2020; Miraux et al., 2022).

From a practical perspective, the study provides a framework – based on ecological emancipatory accounting – that space organisations can use to improve their accountability practices. Companies should move beyond generic, future-oriented narratives and provide measurable, verifiable information about both positive and negative impacts. Integrating financial, ecological and social dimensions in a more systematic manner would allow stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation actions. Moreover, adopting independent monitoring mechanisms, certifications or third-party verifications could strengthen credibility.

The study offers valuable insights for policymakers, regulatory bodies and industry stakeholders. The findings underscore the urgent need for an international regulatory framework that addresses accountability in the New Space Economy. Current voluntary guidelines are insufficient, as they do not impose enforceable obligations on private or public actors. Governments must establish conditions that promote transparency, accountability and sustainability (Delannon and Raufflet, 2021; Ohlinger and Lehner, 2025). In particular, governmental actors can adopt an ethical orientation instead of a purely utilitarian approach, promoting normative duties and penalties for negative impacts while enforcing the restoration of natural areas (Heitor et al., 2024). Policymakers should therefore balance economic and strategic interests with the protection of global commons, ensuring that space exploration contributes to sustainable and equitable futures.

Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations that warrant discussion. Firstly, the research is based on the analysis of financial and non-financial reports which offers valuable insight into the accounting and accountability practices of space companies, but they may not capture the full spectrum of the company’s efforts to address social and environmental impacts. As companies, in general, increasingly use websites to share sustainability information (Leanne et al., 2019), and space agencies are also engaging actively on social media platforms (Bertrand et al., 2015), future research could overcome this limitation by analysing online content to see if different conclusions are reached and if space companies provide different information about their social and environmental impacts. Secondly, the analysis is focused on the launch service segment, considering its significance in terms of activity, revenue and social and environmental impacts. However, it would be interesting to examine the accounting practices of actors in other segments of the New Space Economy. Furthermore, the analysis was solely document-based. It could be beneficial to understand the challenges faced by space actors in changing their accounting practices to produce comprehensive reports on the identification and mitigation of social and environmental impacts. In addition, exploring the factors influencing the emancipatory potential of accounting practices in the space sector could provide valuable insights. Case studies of specific governmental and private space companies could shed light on the role of management control, reporting and governance systems. Finally, while this study highlighted the inadequacy of international standards and the need for collaboration among multiple stakeholders to overcome it, possible solutions were not identified. This could involve examining the role of government regulations, international agreements and industry standards in shaping accounting practices and promoting sustainability in space exploration.