Search results

New Space activities offer benefits for human progress and life beyond the Earth. However, there is a risk that the New Space Economy may develop according to an anthropocentric mindset favouring human progress and survival at the expense of all other species and the environment. This mindset raises concerns over the social and environmental impacts of space activities and the accountability of space actors. This research article explores the accountability of space actors by presenting a pluralistic accountability framework to understand, inspire and change accountability in the New Space Economy. This study also identifies future research opportunities.

This paper is a reflective and normative essay. The arguments are developed using contemporary multidisciplinary academic literature, publicly available evidence and examples. Further, the authors use Dillard and Vinnari's accountability framework to examine a pluralistic accountability system for space businesses.

The New Space Economy requires public and private entities to embrace hybrid and pluralistic accountability for their social and environmental impacts. A new way of seeing the relationship between human life, the Earth and celestial space is needed. Accounting language is used to mirror and mobilise broader forms of responsibility in those involved in space.

This paper responds to the AAAJ's special issue call for examining how accountability can be ensured in the New Space Age. The space activities businesses conduct, and the anthropocentric view inspiring their race toward space is concerning. Hence, the authors advocate the need for rethinking accountability between humans and nature. The paper contributes to fostering the debate on social and environmental accounting and the accountability of space actors in the New Space Economy. To this end, the authors use a pluralistic accountability framework to help understand how the New Space Economy can face the risks emanating from its anthropocentric mindset.

This paper aims to explore the potential explanatory mechanisms linking leader–member exchange (LMX) and a perceived supportive environment for corporate entrepreneurship. Specifically, this paper develops and tests a hypothesized moderated mediation model of the relationship between LMX and a perceived supportive environment for corporate entrepreneurship through psychological empowerment as conditional upon the level of control orientation.

Data were collected from a sample of 682 full-time working adults in the USA and were examined in a moderated mediation model in PROCESS.

The findings suggest that higher LMX augments perceptions of a supportive environment for corporate entrepreneurship with a mediating role for psychological empowerment and a moderating role for control orientation on that conditional relationship.

This research suggests that high quality LMX relationships may enrich the human capital of firms, helping them to innovate and outperform competitors in the context of modern competitive dynamics. The study findings are limited by several factors including a cross-sectional design and a student-recruited sampling approach.

The study offers unique contributions to the leadership and entrepreneurship literature by being among the first to empirically investigate the relationship between LMX and a perceived supportive environment for corporate entrepreneurship as mediated by psychological empowerment and moderated by control orientation, yielding important insights regarding effective leadership practices for facilitating innovative behaviors and corporate entrepreneurship.