Supply Chain Due Diligence in Space-based Manufacturing and Lunar Resource Extraction: Building Sustainable & Resilient Cislunar Operations

Supply Chain Due Diligence in Space-based Manufacturing and Lunar Resource Extraction: Building Sustainable & Resilient Cislunar Operations | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Supply Chain Due Diligence in Space-based Manufacturing and Lunar Resource Extraction: Building Sustainable & Resilient Cislunar Operations Dr Mahipal Lather, Poonam Gulati, Dr. Harsh Kumar, Amiya Mahajan This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8763157/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Space is moving from episodic missions to continuous industrial activity. Space-based manufacturing in microgravity and the extraction of lunar resources through in-situ resource utilisation are now anchored in engineering roadmaps and national regulations, not only in scientific aspiration. Reviews of in-space manufacturing show a steady shift toward orbital assembly lines, additive manufacturing, and on-orbit servicing as enabling infrastructure for a growing commercial space economy. In parallel, technical literature on lunar ISRU highlights water-ice excavation, oxygen production from regolith, and additive construction as prerequisites for extended lunar presence and for cheaper in-space logistics. These developments create a cislunar supply chain that loops between Earth, orbit, lunar orbit, and the lunar surface. The chain is long, capital-intensive, highly autonomous, and legally hybrid, because private operators act under state authorisation and continuing supervision under the Outer Space Treaty. At the same time, terrestrial regulation is hardening supply chain due diligence into binding law. The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive requires large firms to identify, prevent, mitigate and remedy human rights and environmental harms across their chain of activities, with monitoring and liability for failure. This paper is a doctrinal and conceptual study that brings these two trajectories together. It maps the cislunar supply chain, explains why due diligence has distinct features in space, benchmarks early space resource laws and soft-law standards against terrestrial due diligence regimes, and proposes a Cislunar Due Diligence Cycle with concrete benchmarking indicators for sustainability and resilience. The paper argues that due diligence can serve as a practical bridge between state responsibility, private innovation, and the long-term stewardship of orbital and lunar environments. space-based manufacturing lunar resource extraction in-situ resource utilisation (ISRU) supply chain due diligence space sustainability cislunar resilience ESG space law Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction Space is entering a production phase. For most of the space age, activity beyond Earth was dominated by states and a small set of government-anchored contractors. Private companies did build rockets, satellites and software, but the underlying model was one of procurement, not independent industrial ecosystems. That boundary is thinning fast. Commercial launch markets, mega-constellations, on-orbit servicing, space-data platforms and private astronaut missions have already created supply chains where firms set strategy, own assets, and compete for markets. The next step is even more structural. Manufacturing in orbit at scale and harvesting lunar resources are becoming the upstream of future space economies. The shift is visible in technology trajectories. Recent surveys on in-space manufacturing document rapid progress from laboratory experiments on the International Space Station to commercial plans for orbital factories, in-orbit assembly, microgravity pharmaceuticals, fiber optics, and additive manufacturing of spare parts and structural components. The drivers are not only scientific. Microgravity can enable purer crystals, defect-free fibers, and novel alloys, and it allows assembly of structures too large for launch fairings. A similar change is underway on the lunar side. ISRU has moved from speculative engineering to practical system design. Reviews emphasise that water-ice extraction in permanently shadowed regions, oxygen and metal production from regolith, and lunar additive construction are key to sustained lunar operations and to reducing dependence on Earth launches. Continuity in production is sine qua non for predictive and decisive supply chains. A cislunar supply chain will include Earth-based inputs such as critical minerals for spacecraft and batteries, propulsion systems, robotics, power modules and AI hardware. It will also include space-based nodes such as orbital manufacturing platforms, propellant depots, transport tugs, relay satellites, and lunar processing plants. This creates a risk governance challenge. Emerging research explores how principles of ethical consumerism and legal accountability from virtual environments, such as the metaverse, can inform governance frameworks for nascent digital and physical markets, including those for space-derived products [1]. Harms can arise far from populations and regulators, making responsibility easier to deflect. Physical and environmental externalities in orbit and on the lunar surface can be long-lived or irreversible. Private firms operate under state licences, yet their business models are globally networked and often financed by international capital. Supply chain due diligence is already a live subject in terrestrial industries. Governments and investors now expect firms to trace inputs for forced labour, conflict minerals, deforestation, unsafe work, emissions and hazardous waste. The move from voluntary ESG [2] to binding duties is expressly emphasised in the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and related national statutes, which require organised risk management across value chains. There is no reason to think that these expectations at the Kármán line. The bigger question is how to translate due diligence to a domain governed by public international law that assigns primary responsibility to states but relies on private execution. This paper asks three most relevant connected questions, viz., how should cislunar supply chains be mapped for due diligence purposes? What risk categories matter in space-based manufacturing and lunar extraction, including human rights, environmental, governance and cybersecurity risks? And what due diligence model fits a hybrid public-private, AI-rich, remote industrial environment? The paper uses a doctrinal, comparative method. It reads space treaties, Artemis principles, national space resource laws, debris and planetary protection standards, besides terrestrial due diligence statutes and supply chain resilience research. It then proposes a due diligence cycle and a benchmarking-oriented indicator set that can guide early empirical work and practice. 2. Literature Review The current era calls for sustainable and resilient supply chains that direct operations from concepts of foundational efficiency and risk management to optimum due diligence frameworks, specifically encompassing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria. As human activity expands into space, space-based manufacturing and lunar resource extraction are emerging as important new areas of development. In this context, the need to build sustainable and resilient cislunar operations is becoming unavoidable for continued research, international cooperation, and the adoption of sound, end-to-end management practices. This literature review brings together key findings from recent scholarship on integrated supply chain due diligence, the balance between cost and risk, environmental responsibility, and the role of technological innovation in space-based manufacturing and lunar resource extraction. Current research also confirms that strong ESG practices and thorough due diligence are not optional add-ons. They are central to long-term performance, risk control, and operational resilience. Tamayo-Torres et al. [3] argue that addressing controversies in supply chains should not be treated as a narrow compliance task. Instead, it is a practical requirement for improving both sustainability outcomes and financial results. Truant [4] builds on this point through a systematic review, showing that ESG considerations are increasingly being integrated into supply chain management and that responsible business conduct can support competitive advantage. Bade [5], in a study of the pharmaceutical sector, reports that organisations with higher sustainability maturity tend to have stronger supply chain security. Their findings indicate that due diligence is very important and more than a mere reporting requirement. It functions as a practical tool for strengthening systemic resilience in complex supply networks where risks are high and disruptions can spread quickly. The importance of buying firm in governing supplier sustainability is highlighted by Ahmed and Shafiq [6], wherein the authors confirm that when the buyer’s power and legitimacy are coupled with sustainability, it leads to major improvement in supplier sustainability performance. Cao et al. [7] emphasise that buyer-seller governance relationships raise difficult questions of fairness and cost distribution. They show that ESG due diligence can influence how buyers collaborate to manage supplier responsibility, and they highlight that the implementation works best when the added costs are shared in a fair and workable way. Buyer-seller governance can complicate questions of fairness and how costs are shared. Studies on ESG due diligence and buyer collaboration in managing supplier responsibility show that implementation is more effective when the added compliance, monitoring, and reporting costs are allocated through equitable and workable cost-sharing models. Schleper et al. [8] starkly presented the challenge of equitable distribution, suggesting that the due diligence costs must be fairly distributed to respite the most vulnerable actors in the supply chain, especially in the case of nascent, high-cost space supply chains, where due diligence costs, if unfairly allocated, can weaken participation by smaller suppliers and undermine resilience. Space Missions require the incorporation of comprehensive risk management, as discussed by Sawik [9]. The proper identification and mitigation of supply chain disruptions, including resource shortages, transportation delays, environmental hazards, etc, are essential for the success of space missions. The use of big data analytics and continuous monitoring can enhance risk detection and response, supporting agile and robust supply chains [10]. Gervais et al. [11] show that effective due diligence is, by its nature, risk-based and supports accountability frameworks for lead firms. They argue that due diligence should be targeted according to the severity and likelihood of ESG harms at particular points in a supply chain. They illustrate this approach through a quantitative model focused on the use of silver in photovoltaic supply chains. Gündogdu et al. [12] show that, when ESG risks are clearly identified, firms can respond by building environmentally sensitive competitive strategies and by placing due diligence at the centre of business planning. Their analysis of a multinational logistics company indicates that due diligence can function as part of the core strategy rather than as a separate compliance task. Gulati and Arora [13] also argue that entrepreneurship and innovation are key drivers for moving from linear to circular supply chain models. They suggest that such a shift is especially important for sustainable extraterrestrial operations, where resource constraints and end-of-life planning demand circular design and recovery practices. Rao et al. [14], drawing on Business and Human Rights principles, propose a due diligence framework to hold retail corporations accountable for food waste. They argue for a proactive and preventive duty that extends across the supply chain, rather than a narrow focus on end-stage disposal. A similar logic applies to reducing environmental impact on the Moon. If in-situ resource utilisation (ISRU) is to be scaled responsibly, operators must manage its byproducts in a planned and controlled manner so that waste, dust, and other residues do not become long-term sources of harm. ISRU can help prevent lunar surface contamination and support long-term sustainability [15]. It can also reduce mission costs and logistical burdens by limiting the need to transport materials from Earth. At the same time, ISRU produces waste streams, including slag, excess metals, and released volatiles, which must be managed through well-designed recycling, upcycling, and safe disposal strategies. Ishimatsu et al. [16] conclude that multicommodity flow modelling can help plan lunar operations more efficiently by optimising resource production alongside waste management. Their work suggests that such integrated modelling supports scalability and long-term sustainability in lunar missions. Sharma et al. [17] model the main enablers of supply chain decarbonisation through an ESG lens, with the aim of achieving zero carbon emissions. Their argument is especially relevant for sustainable in-situ resource utilisation (ISRU) on the Moon, where relying on traditional, carbon-intensive logistics from Earth is both prohibitively expensive and environmentally unsustainable. In the same direction, Asif et al. [2] explain how due diligence tools and goals are being reshaped by technology and net-zero expectations. They identify Industry 5.0 technologies, including AI and blockchain, as important supports for more transparent and verifiable ESG disclosure. This is directly relevant to cislunar supply chains because many activities will be remote, automated, and difficult to supervise through conventional means (Al-Okaily [18] similarly shows that adopting best practices alongside Industry 4.0 tools such as IoT, blockchain, and big data can drive innovation by enabling real-time monitoring, evidence-based decisions, and sustainability controls that run through the full supply chain lifecycle. A holistic approach to supply chain management considers the entire lifecycle of space assets, from manufacturing and operation to end-of-life disposal and recycling. Standards for sustainable design, material selection, and repurposing of assets (e.g., satellites) are increasingly important for reducing waste and supporting a circular space economy [19]. The reviewed literature provides the conceptual toolkit by discussing the strategic value of ESG due diligence, the importance of buyer-led governance and equitable cost-sharing, the necessity of risk-based frameworks, and the enabling role of technology for transparency and decarbonisation. Because these studies are grounded in terrestrial regulatory, logistical, and social infrastructures, this paper applies and adapts their due diligence logic to outer space, where governance is legally hybrid, verification is remote, technology dependence is extreme, and sustainability failures can be difficult to reverse. economy [19][9], International cooperation and the establishment of standards for manufacturing, maintenance, and waste management, so that optimising the space mission supply chain involves demand forecasting, inventory management, and efficient transportation routes, is made possible. The development of comprehensive frameworks and international standards will be key to advancing sustainable and resilient space infrastructure [20]; [21]. The central research gap lies in adapting and expanding these established due diligence frameworks to govern the unique ethical, environmental, and operational risks of multi-planetary supply chains, where the stakes for sustainability and resilience are literally astronomical. 3. Mapping the cislunar supply chain Due diligence must begin with a realistic mapping of the supply chain. For cislunar activity, the supply chain is best mapped under five interlinked segments that loop rather than terminate as an isolated, distinct segment. 3.1 Earth-based upstream sourcing and fabrication : The first segment sits on Earth. It includes mining and processing of critical minerals, manufacture of spacecraft buses, propulsion units, power systems, avionics, sensors, robotics, excavation equipment, additive manufacturing feedstock, and AI chips. It overlaps with known terrestrial risk zones. Cobalt and nickel, rare earth magnets, lithium salts, high-purity aluminium and titanium, and specialised semiconductors all have documented exposure to labour abuse, unsafe work, community displacement and high emissions. Terrestrial due diligence regimes treat these issues as core scope, and space supply chains are not insulated simply because volumes are small. A single high-risk supplier can link an entire lunar project to forced labour or serious environmental harm. 3.2 Launch and ground logistics : Launch is usually described as a service, yet it is itself a dense supply chain. It includes propellant sourcing, cryogenic storage, coastal or inland spaceports, range safety systems, insurance markets, maritime transport of oversized hardware, and the industrial ecosystem around launch vehicles. Launch supply chains face safety risk, local pollution from propellant production and combustion, and geopolitical disruption through export controls or sanctions. These disruptions are already visible in terrestrial aerospace markets and can scale as lunar missions increase cadence. 3.3 Orbital manufacturing and staging : The third segment is production in orbit or in cislunar space. This includes operation of stations or free-flying factories, microgravity assembly lines, additive manufacturing, on-orbit quality assurance, storage of produced items, and controlled return to Earth whenever required. It is data-intensive and highly autonomous because immediate human intervention may be limited. It is also the point where debris and collision risk become major external challenges. Orbital manufacturing depends on various factors, to include stable spectrum access and space traffic management, and is regulated through International Telecommunication Union (ITU) coordination and national licensing. 3.4 Cislunar transport and lunar surface operations : The fourth segment covers transport to lunar orbit and surface, and the extraction and processing of lunar materials. It includes landers, rovers, excavators, autonomous processing plants, power generation, dust mitigation systems, resource storage and transfer, and communication relays. Risks here include navigation failures, excavation accidents, dust plume effects that can damage other missions, and interference in scarce areas such as permanently shadowed regions. Artemis-style governance proposes safety zones for deconfliction, but their interpretation and enforcement remain politically sensitive. A lifecycle approach matters at this stage as well. Sustainable design choices, material selection, and end-of-life planning shape debris risk, maintenance burdens, and circularity outcomes across cislunar infrastructure [19]. 3.5 Downstream utilisation and Earth return : The final segment includes the use of lunar-derived propellant for in-space logistics and integration of space-made materials into terrestrial markets. It also includes end-of-life disposal, deorbiting, relocation to graveyard orbits, or long-term storage of defunct assets. Sustainability expectations extend into this segment through circular economy logic and product stewardship. Gulati and Arora [13] support the argument for circular economy logic and innovative, human-centric business models in space. The key point is feedback. Lunar propellant changes Earth launch demand. Orbital manufacturing can reduce or shift terrestrial extraction. Due diligence must treat these loops as part of risk forecasting, not as distant side effects. Advanced modelling, such as generalised multicommodity network flow models for Earth-Moon logistics systems, can help optimise these feedback loops, ensuring scalable and sustainable operations [16]. 4. Peculiarities of ‘due diligence’ in space Terrestrial due diligence tools are portable, but their operational logic changes in space. 4.1 Rationale for ‘benchmarking’ and performance measurement for due diligence : Benchmarking is useful here because “due diligence” becomes operational only when it is translated into measurable performance expectations, comparable across firms, missions, and time. For cislunar operations, benchmarking should capture both sustainability outcomes and resilience capacity, because supply continuity and safety are inseparable from environmental stewardship and human rights governance in upstream sourcing. This paper, therefore, treats benchmarking as a measurement system that converts legal and ethical duties into indicators that can be audited, compared, and improved through continuous learning. 4.2 State responsibility and licensing : Under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty [22] (UNOOSA, 2222 (XXI)), states bear international responsibility for national activities in space, including those by private entities, and must authorise and continuously supervise them. Private firms, therefore, operate within a legal web where supply chain harms can trigger not only corporate liability but also state responsibility and diplomatic exposure. This makes due diligence a shared governance task between licensee and licensing state, and not a purely private compliance matter. 4.3 Non-appropriation and commons legitimacy : Article II of the Outer Space Treaty (UNOOSA, 2222 (XXI))[22] bars national appropriation of celestial bodies and resources by sovereignty claims. The Moon Agreement, though ratified by a few major powers, frames lunar resources as a common heritage and anticipates benefit-sharing. Even where non-parties reject its legal force, the commons narrative carries political weight. Lunar extraction thus sits in a legitimacy-sensitive environment. Due diligence in space must therefore include a dimension of public legitimacy and benefit reasoning that goes beyond terrestrial “local community” paradigms. 4.4 Remoteness and verification gaps : Space operations are remote. Terrestrial due diligence draws heavily on on-site audits, worker interviews and civic monitoring. In orbit or on the Moon, verification relies on telemetry, remote sensing, digital twins, and third-party analytics. Evidence is mediated through software and data links, which raises trust and manipulation risks. This makes transparent, verifiable indicators essential. Here, technologies associated with Industry 5.0, such as AI and blockchain, serve as key enablers for enhancing the transparency and verifiability of ESG disclosure and operational data [2]. 4.5 Autonomy, AI and adaptive risk : Orbital factories and lunar mines will depend on AI and autonomy because of hazard levels and signal delay. AI can optimise operations, but it introduces algorithmic governance risks such as model drift, hidden failure modes, and vulnerability to cyber interference. Due diligence, therefore, must include model risk management and cybersecurity assessment as core scope, not as a peripheral IT add-on. 4.6 Irreversibility of harms : Debris creation and some forms of lunar contamination are hard to reverse. UN debris mitigation and long-term sustainability guidelines treat prevention as the primary policy lever. In due diligence terms, this shifts emphasis from remediation after harm to prevention before harm. Prevention is the only meaningful remedy for many space externalities. 5. Benchmarking methodology for supply chain due diligence in cislunar operations To align the proposed framework with benchmarking scholarship and focusing on performance measurement, this study adopts a structured benchmarking methodology that translates due diligence obligations into measurable and comparable indicators. Benchmarking is used here as a tool for ongoing improvement, not as a one-time exercise. It helps operators, regulators, and other stakeholders compare practices, spot gaps, and identify what works well in complex and high-risk cislunar supply chains. The method follows the following five steps: First, the study defines the main benchmarking domains by focusing on the most important due diligence risks in cislunar operations. These domains include traceability and transparency, environmental care, safety and mission assurance, supplier governance, digital and cybersecurity resilience, and circularity. The choice of domains is informed by well-known due diligence standards and by space law duties, including the OECD Due Diligence Guidance, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the duty of authorisation and continuing supervision under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty (UNOOSA, 2222 (XXI) [22]; OECD, 2018 [23]). Second, the study sets specific indicators for each domain. Indicators are selected because they relate directly to due diligence duties, can be measured through visible evidence, can be influenced by the operator or its suppliers, and can be checked through records. Each indicator is described with its scope, the type of evidence needed, and how often it should be assessed. This keeps comparisons consistent across different missions and operators. Third, the method uses a common scoring scale so results can be compared. Each indicator may be scored on an ordinal scale, such as 0 to 3/4. A score of 0 means there is no clear due diligence practice in place. A high score means the practice is well established and can be verified independently. This type of scoring is widely used in benchmarking, where exact performance data may not be available or may be confidential [24]. Fourth, the scores are combined at the domain level. The baseline model uses equal weights to avoid giving unfair priority to one risk over another. Where regulators or stakeholders want to highlight certain risks, such as debris control or cybersecurity, the framework can be adjusted through sensitivity analysis and revised weights while still keeping comparisons meaningful. Fifth, the method links results to learning and improvement. The scores are not treated as final rankings. They are used to support corrective steps, improve supplier practices, and strengthen design and operational planning. In this way, benchmarking becomes part of a continuing due diligence process, not a box-ticking exercise. 6. Quantified illustrative benchmarking application using open-source data This illustrative example uses numerical scoring to demonstrate how benchmarking can operate in practice. It relies exclusively on publicly available regulatory and licensing materials so that the assessment remains transparent, comparable, and methodologically strict. No private information or speculative assumptions are used. Four core due diligence indicators are scored because they are cross-jurisdictional in relevance and central to supply chain governance: authorisation and supervision traceability and registration environmental risk management digital and cybersecurity oversight Each indicator is assigned a score from 0 to 3. The scores reflect whether relevant requirements exist, the level of regulatory clarity, and the extent to which enforcement authorities have practical powers to monitor compliance and take action. Table 1 below presents the resulting benchmark scores for three jurisdictions. Table 1 Quantified benchmarking of licensing-based due diligence (illustrative) Indicator United States Luxembourg Japan Authorisation and continuing supervision 3 2 2 Traceability and registration obligations 3 2 2 Environmental risk and debris mitigation 3 2 1 Digital and cybersecurity governance 2 1 1 Composite due diligence score (max = 12) 11 7 6 Source Compiled by authors from open legislative and regulatory documents Disclaimer This benchmarking example reflects only a baseline level of regulatory maturity. It does not rank real-world operational performance. Its purpose is to demonstrate that due diligence requirements can be translated into measurable indicators and compared across jurisdictions using publicly available, verifiable evidence. In the illustrative table, the United States achieves the highest overall score. Its licensing approach sets relatively clear obligations, supports ongoing supervision, and, within the FAA framework, places explicit emphasis on debris mitigation and mission assurance. Luxembourg performs credibly on authorisation and financial responsibility, but the public record provides less clarity on supplier-level traceability and gives comparatively limited attention to structured digital risk governance. Japan’s framework places strong weight on mission safety, yet publicly accessible details remain limited on environmental due diligence and cybersecurity controls across extended supply chains. Overall, the example shows that benchmarking is a workable approach for assessing due diligence in space supply chains. Open-source materials can support meaningful comparison even in an emerging sector. The method should become more robust as disclosure standards expand and as digital traceability systems mature and become more widely adopted. 7. Benchmarking against terrestrial due diligence regimes 7.1 EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive : Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence (CSDDD) requires in-scope companies to identify, prevent, mitigate, and bring to an end adverse human rights and environmental impacts across their “chain of activities”, supported by monitoring, public communication, and liability-facing enforcement design (European Union, 2024). It requires risk identification, prevention and mitigation, stakeholder engagement, grievance mechanisms, monitoring, disclosure, and climate transition planning, and it introduces civil liability for negligent failure. Even if implementation is gradual and scope debated, the core architecture redefines due diligence as an ongoing duty of care. The CSDDD's duty of care aligns with academic frameworks that argue for a proactive, preventative due diligence duty to hold lead firms accountable for impacts, such as food waste, across their value chains, as discussed by Rao et al. [14]. 7.2 German LkSG and French Duty of Vigilance : Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act mandates risk management, annual reporting and remedial action for human rights and specified environmental harms, backed by administrative sanctions. France’s Duty of Vigilance law requires large companies to prepare and implement vigilance plans that address serious risks linked to their subsidiaries and supply chains. Where a company fails to comply and harm occurs, it may face civil liability. These types of laws also highlight two main enforcement approaches. In one model, compliance is driven mainly through regulatory supervision. In the other, enforcement is shaped through court scrutiny and civil claims. In both approaches, firms are expected to manage risk through structured processes and to keep clear records that show what controls exist and how they are applied. Contemporary research reaffirms the role of stringent ESG practices and extensive due diligence as integral to strategic performance and resilience. Tamayo-Torres et al. [3] conclude that managing supply chain controversies is not merely a compliance activity, but essential to boost both sustainability and financial performance. 7.3 Implications for space : Three implications matter for space supply chains. Due diligence is becoming a duty to prevent foreseeable harms, not only to disclose. Some space resource laws already move in that direction. The UAE space resources regulation conditions authorisation on environmental protection and debris mitigation plans, explicitly linking resource activity to sustainability oversight. The US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, Luxembourg, and Japan laws recognise private rights to extracted resources but anchor them in national licensing and compliance with international obligations. These are early due diligence gateways. Stakeholder and consultation logic is becoming part of due diligence. In space, stakeholders include other missions, scientific users, states, and the broader human interest in a stable commons. Artemis principles of due regard, interoperability and consultation in case of potential interference align with this logic. Monitoring and adaptive review are mandatory under terrestrial law. Cislunar operations evolve quickly, so due diligence must be designed as a continuous cycle supported by real-time data. Truant et al. [4] mention the strategic value argument, which is supported by systematic reviews that confirm that the integration of ESG issues into supply chain management is fundamentally linked to building competitive advantage. 7.4 Data, cybersecurity and AI model risk : Cybersecurity should be framed as a benchmarking dimension with explicit operational metrics, not only as a narrative risk. IoT telemetry, remote sensing, and digital twins help verify due diligence. But they widen attack surfaces across suppliers, software, ground stations, and links. Benchmark minimum cyber standards: third-party assurance coverage, vulnerability fix times, telemetry encryption, command channel resilience, and incident reporting levels. These metrics also build resilience. Studies show digital capabilities and governance boost supply chain strength during disruptions [25]. 8. Risk categories for space-based manufacturing and lunar extraction Due diligence depends on the scope of risks and challenges it addresses. For cislunar supply chains, the following six categories of risks are important and significantly relevant: 8.1 Human rights and labour risks on Earth : Most human rights risks arise in terrestrial upstream supply. Critical minerals and electronics chains are associated with forced labour exposure, informal mining accidents, child labour, gendered exploitation, and community conflicts. Space firms may mistakenly assume that “high-tech” equals “low-risk.” Due diligence should follow aerospace and electronics standards by tracing to mine level where feasible, requiring supplier codes, independent audits, and remediation pathways for victims. The importance of buying firm in governing supplier sustainability is highlighted by Ahmed and Shafiq [6], wherein the authors confirm that when the buyer’s power and legitimacy are coupled with sustainability leads to major improvement in supplier sustainability performance. 8.2 Environmental and climate risks on Earth : Launch propellant production, vehicle manufacturing, and ground logistics have measurable emissions and local hazards. Launch emissions are a small share of global totals now, yet growing launch frequency can make them regionally relevant. Due diligence should include lifecycle carbon accounting, toxic propellant waste management, and community impact assessments around launch sites. This is a critical step toward supply chain decarbonisation, a complex goal that requires modelling key enablers from an integrated ESG perspective to achieve viable pathways to zero emissions [17]. 8.3 Orbital environmental risks and debris : In-orbit manufacturing and dense cislunar logistics can create debris through collisions, releases of parts, or irresponsible disposal. OST Article IX requires the avoidance of harmful contamination and adverse changes in space environments. Debris guidelines and traffic management norms are filtering into national licence conditions. Due diligence here is about verifying that design, operations and end-of-life plans keep debris probabilities within accepted tolerance, and funding removal or safe retirement where needed. 8.4 Lunar surface environmental and heritage risks : The lunar environment is physically delicate. Dust plumes can travel far and abrade instruments. Permanently shadowed regions with water ice carry both economic and scientific value. Scholarly work increasingly treats some lunar sites as heritage or scientific preserves. Due diligence should cover site selection, plume modelling, contamination control, dust mitigation, and respect for heritage and science zones. Similarly, for minimising environmental impact on the Moon, effective management of byproducts from in-situ resource utilisation (ISRU) technologies is essential. ISRU, to prevent lunar surface contamination and support long-term sustainability, [15] can significantly reduce mission costs and logistical burdens. 8.5 Governance and geopolitical risk : Cislunar supply chains are exposed to strategic rivalry. Export controls on advanced electronics or propulsion can interrupt production. Sanctions or conflict can affect launch access and ground infrastructure. Resilience-oriented due diligence includes scenario planning, diversified suppliers, transparency on dual-use risk, and stress testing for cross-border interruptions. Space Missions require the incorporation of comprehensive risk management, as discussed by Sawik [9]. The proper identification and mitigation of supply chain disruptions, including resource shortages, transportation delays, environmental hazards, etc, are essential for the success of space missions. Beyond mitigation, resilience-oriented due diligence can inform environmentally sensitive competitive strategies, allowing firms to embed due diligence findings into their core strategic positioning [12]. 8.6 Data, cybersecurity and AI model risk : Orbital factories and lunar mines are cyber-physical systems. Their control depends on complex communication links. Cyber compromise could trigger safety events, leak sensitive data, or enable covert extraction. Due diligence must include secure-by-design architecture, third-party testing, and documentation of AI decision pathways. 9. The Cislunar Due Diligence Cycle Based on the risk map and benchmarking, a due diligence model for space should have four phases and two cross-cutting principles. 9.1 Phase one- trace and register. Traceability begins before launch. Firms should register critical suppliers [6], materials, subsystems and AI models in a digital chain-of-custody system. Blockchain and product passports can help, but verifiable data is the goal. For lunar extraction, traceability extends to location, quantities removed, processing methods and storage. Existing public registries for spectrum filings and object registration can be expanded into due diligence registers. 9.2 Phase two- forecast and rank risks. Risk forecasting must combine legal and engineering scenarios. This includes human rights risk indices for terrestrial suppliers, launch failure and debris collision modelling, dust plume simulations, and geopolitical shock analysis. The output should be a ranked risk portfolio tied to each chain segment. Bade et al. [5] suggest that the implementation of new sustainability measures can itself introduce short-term disruption risks, requiring careful assessment of maturity levels and change management capabilities to secure the supply chain. Gervais et al. [11] advocate for a risk-based due diligence approach, prioritising efforts by severity and the irreversibility of harms. 9.3 Phase three: prevent and adapt. Prevention measures differ by segment. Terrestrial sourcing requires audits, supplier training, and remediation plans. Orbital manufacturing requires built-in redundancy, reliable collision avoidance protocols, passive safe modes, dedicated deorbit funding, and continuous cybersecurity testing. Lunar mining, in comparison, demands buffer zones, slower excavation to reduce plume effects, robust power infrastructure, and secure storage systems. Because operating conditions can shift quickly, operators should combine preventive safeguards with adaptive controls that can respond to changing risks. They also need active monitoring for AI model drift and newly emerging hazards. When these practices are supported by Industry 4.0 tools such as IoT, blockchain, and big data analytics, they can drive innovation by enabling real-time tracking, evidence-based decision-making, and sustainability controls integrated across every stage of the supply chain [18]. Mageto chains [10] discussed the use of big data analytics for enhanced risk detection, supporting such agile and robust supply chains. 9.4 Phase four- verify and remediate : Verification in space relies on telemetry, remote sensing and independent analytics. Auditors can use digital twins and situational awareness data to test compliance. Where harms occur, remediation may be terrestrial, such as victim compensation or supplier replacement, and space-based, such as debris removal commitments or site stabilisation measures. Transparency about what cannot be remediated is part of accountability. 9.5 Cross-cutting principle: shared supervision : States are internationally responsible, so due diligence should be shared between the licensee and licensing authority. The logic of shared supervision is consistent with buyer collaboration models that address ESG due diligence spillovers and fairness concerns in multi-tier supply chains [26]. States can require due diligence plans as part of authorisation, similar to environmental impact assessments, and can pool risk data through multilateral forums. International cooperation and the establishment of standards for manufacturing, maintenance, and waste management, so that optimising the space mission supply chain involves demand forecasting, inventory management, and efficient transportation routes, is made possible. The development of comprehensive frameworks and international standards will be key to advancing sustainable and resilient space infrastructure [20] [21]. 9.6 Cross-cutting principle: legitimacy and benefit reasoning : Because lunar extraction touches common claims, due diligence should include a legitimacy audit about benefit distribution. This can involve commitments to open scientific data, shared infrastructure access, or contributions to space sustainability funds, without predetermining a single political model of benefit-sharing. Schleper et al. [8], while discussing benefit distribution, concluded that equitable models must also consider the distribution of operational costs. Research on conflict minerals warns that without fair cost-sharing mechanisms, due diligence costs can be disproportionately borne by the most vulnerable upstream actors, undermining the ethical foundation of the supply chain. Pal and Gulati [1] advocate for future-facing governance models, stakeholder engagement, and the ethical frameworks for new space markets. 10. Benchmarking indicators for due diligence in cislunar supply chain Benchmarking translates supply chain due diligence for cislunar activities into operational steps. It converts legal, ethical, and sustainability responsibilities into performance indicators that operators can measure and compare. Figure 1 presents a suggested benchmarking framework designed to assess due diligence across the full cislunar supply chain, including terrestrial sourcing, manufacturing, launch services, in-orbit operations, lunar surface activities, and end-of-life management. The suggested framework is built on a simple premise that due diligence is effective only when it can be measured, audited, and compared across operators and jurisdictions. For this reason, the indicators emphasise comparability, regulatory oversight, and continuous improvement, rather than one-time compliance exercises. The framework is organised around a stable core reference structure and five indicator domains. The core establishes neutral benchmarking principles that remain constant across mission profiles and regulatory settings. By keeping the reference principles stable, the framework enables results to be compared over time and across different operating environments. Surrounding this core are the following five risk domains that reflect the main governance pressures within cislunar supply chains: traceability and transparency across suppliers and materials human rights and labour safeguards in upstream and contractor networks environmental and carbon impacts across the lifecycle of space activities safety and mission assurance in high-risk operational environments resilience, circularity, and continuity, including redundancy, debris mitigation, lunar surface impacts, and end-of-life recovery Each domain is operationalised through specific indicators that capture observable governance measures and control practices. Illustrative indicators include supplier traceability mechanisms, emissions and lifecycle reporting, safety and incident metrics, redundancy thresholds, debris-risk mitigation plans, and material recovery or reuse practices. Indicators are scored through ordinal rankings based on publicly available documentation, such as licences, regulatory filings, contractual disclosures, sustainability reports, and other verifiable statements of practice. The individual scores are then consolidated to support oversight and comparative assessment. The resulting benchmark profiles allow operators to compare performance, identify vulnerabilities, track progress over time, and inform decision-making by regulators, licensors, investors, and mission partners. The framework also embeds a feedback loop, using benchmark outcomes to refine engineering design choices, supplier engagement, and risk-mitigation measures. In this way, due diligence is treated as a continuing and iterative governance process, rather than a static compliance requirement. 11. Sustainability and resilience implications Due diligence is moral compliance and strategic resilience at once [7]. Visibility and redundancy reduce cascading failures. Cislunar chains are exposed to single points of failure in launch, raw materials, and orbital nodes. Due diligence that embeds redundancy and adaptive AI monitoring builds resilience consistent with broader supply chain resilience literature stressing visibility, flexibility and collaboration. Prevention protects a fragile commons. Because debris and lunar alteration are hard to reverse, integrating disposal and contamination costs into design is the sustainability core. This resembles terrestrial industries where due diligence shifts risk [11] and cost control upstream. Legitimacy shapes finance. Investors are beginning to price space sustainability risk. Transparent due diligence performance can lower insurance costs and regulatory friction, and may become a condition for licences and market access. 12. Research agenda A doctrinal framework should point to feasible empirical work. Comparative licensing studies can code how states embed due diligence in authorisations, comparing the UAE model with the US, Luxembourg, Japan and emerging Indian frameworks. Early lunar missions allow practice mapping. The first legally licensed commercial lunar material transfer by ispace, undertaken under US authorisation and Artemis principles, provides a concrete case for studying how compliance and due diligence are operationalised. Indicator validation can pilot the proposed metrics on satellite constellations and terrestrial mining analogues before adjusting for lunar specifics. AI governance work can study accountability for autonomous decision systems in remote supply chains, linking to emerging research on algorithmic accountability in high-risk industries. 13. Policy recommendations Requiring due diligence plans in space resource licences is an immediate practical move. States can demand traceability, debris control, planetary protection, AI governance and end-of-mission funding as licence conditions. Building a multilateral verification infrastructure is necessary for credibility. Shared situational awareness, plume modelling standards, and open extraction registries reduce the risk that any operator is effectively self-policing. Aligning due diligence with future benefit discussions makes governance smoother. Transparency, consultation and prevention are common ground for any eventual benefit-sharing framework, and help avoid a later legitimacy shock. 14. Conclusion Space-based manufacturing and lunar resource extraction are on track to become pillars of a new industrial frontier. Their supply chains are long, looped, capital-heavy, and legally unusual. Terrestrial due diligence regimes give a strong baseline, but copying them without translation would miss what makes space distinct. The Cislunar Due Diligence Cycle proposed here aims to translate that baseline into a governance tool fit for cislunar realities. It treats traceability, risk forecasting, prevention, verification and legitimacy as parts of a continuous loop shared by firms and licensing states. It also offers pilot benchmarking indicators so that early missions and regulators can compare performance and learn quickly. The deeper point is that outer space is a commons in law and in moral imagination. Production beyond Earth will be legitimate only if it is done with care for people, for environments on Earth and off Earth, and for the governance order that keeps space open to all. Supply chain due diligence makes that care operational. If it is ignored, the cislunar industry may reproduce the worst habits of terrestrial extraction and secrecy. If it is embraced early, it can help build a resilient, sustainable space economy that remains compatible with international law and long-term stewardship. The paper explains the benchmarking method with clarity and shows how it can be applied using open-source evidence. This approach responds to the need for practical due diligence research that can track performance in real settings. The study also rejects the view that due diligence is only a moral obligation. Instead, it treats due diligence as a measurable capability that organisations can develop, assess, and improve. Firms can evaluate this capability by comparing practices across companies, jurisdictions, and mission contexts. Such comparisons encourage continuous improvement, support regulatory learning across systems, and strengthen the resilience of supply chains. Declarations Author Contribution Authors 1 & 2 selected the topic and drafted the basic manuscript. All authors contributed to reviewing the literature. Author 3 also contributed to aligning the sections of the paper, and Author 4 contributed, drawing figures, tables, formatting, in-text citation and referencing. All authors reviewed the final manuscript. References Pal K, Gulati P. Building Resilient Virtual Markets: connecting ethical and legal consumerism with sustainable development goals in the metaverse. In: Leal Filho W, Kautish S, Gupta VP, editors. Metaverse and Sustainability: Business Resilience Towards Sustainable Development Goals. Cham: Springer; 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-89545-6_22. Asif M, Searcy C, Castka P. ESG and Industry 5.0: the role of technologies in enhancing ESG disclosure. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2023; 95:122806. https://doi.or.1016/j.techfore.2023.122806. Tamayo-Torres I, Gutierrez-Gutierrez L, Ruiz-Moreno A. Boosting sustainability and financial performance: the role of supply chain controversies. Int J Prod Res. 2019;57(11):3719–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1562248. Truant E, Borlatto E, Crocco E, Sahore N. Environmental, social and governance issues in supply chains. A systematic review for strategic performance. J Clean Prod. 2024;434:140024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140024. Bade C, Olsacher A, Boehme P, Truebel H, Bürger L, Fehring L. Sustainability in the pharmaceutical industry—An assessment of sustainability maturity and effects of sustainability measure implementation on supply chain security. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. 2023;31(1):224–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2564. Ahmed MU, Shafiq A. Toward sustainable supply chains: impact of buyer’s legitimacy, power and aligned focus on supplier sustainability performance. Int J Oper Prod Manag. 2022;42(3):280–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-08-2021-0540. Cao Y, Li Q, Shen B, Wang Y. Buyer collaboration in managing supplier responsibility with ESG due diligence effort spillover and fairness concerns. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev. 2023;180:103333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2023.103333. Schleper MC, Blome C, Stevenson M, Thürer M, Tusell I. When it’s the slaves that pay: in search of a fair due diligence cost distribution in conflict mineral supply chains. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev. 2022;164:102801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2022.102801. Sawik B. Space Mission Risk, Sustainability and Supply Chain: review, multi-objective optimisation model and practical approach. Sustainability. 2023;15(14):11002. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411002. Mageto J. Big Data Analytics in Sustainable Supply Chain Management: a focus on manufacturing supply chains. Sustainability. 2021;13(13):7101. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137101. Gervais E, Kleijn R, Nold S, van der Voet E. Risk-based due diligence in supply chains: the case of silver for photovoltaics. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2023;198:107148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107148. Gündoğdu HG, Aytekin A, Toptancı Ş, Korucuk S, Karamaşa Ç. Environmental, social, and governance risks and environmentally sensitive competitive strategies: a case study of a multinational logistics company. Bus Strategy Environ. 2023;32(7):4015–5120. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3398. Gulati P, Arora S. Human entrepreneurship in circular supply chain management: a synopsis of theory, practice and future pathways. In: Mathiyazhagan K, Agarwal V, Malhotra S, Scuotto V, editors. Humanizing Circular Supply Chain Management. Cham: Springer; 2025. p. [Page numbers if available]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86562-6_10. Rao M, Bernaz N, de Boer A. Holding retail corporations accountable for food waste: a due diligence framework informed by business and human rights principles. J Bus Ethics. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05572-0. Gkaravela E, Chen H. Logistics Analysis for Lunar Post-Mission Disposal. In: AIAA SCITECH 2025 Forum. Reston: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; 2025. p. AIAA 2025 − 1480. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2025-1480. Ishimatsu T, Weck O, Hoffman J, Ohkami Y, Shishko R. Generalised Multicommodity Network Flow Model for the Earth–Moon–Mars Logistics System. J Spac Rockets. 2016;53(1):25–38. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.a33235. Sharma M, Shah JK, Joshi S. Modeling enablers of supply chain decarbonisation to achieve zero carbon emissions: an environment, social and governance (ESG) perspective. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2023;30(31):76718–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27480-6. Al-Okaily M, Younis H, Al-Okaily A. The impact of management practices and industry 4.0 technologies on supply chain sustainability: a systematic review. Heliyon. 2024;10(8):e36421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36421. Buitrago-Leiva J, Camps A, Niño A. Considerations for Eco-LeanSat Satellite Manufacturing and Recycling. Sustainability. 2024;16(12):4933. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124933. Sánchez-Flores R, Cruz-Sotelo S, Ojeda-Benítez S, Ramírez-Barreto M. Sustainable Supply Chain Management—A Literature Review on Emerging Economies. Sustainability. 2020;12(17):6972. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176972. Sauer P, Seuring S. Sustainable supply chain management for minerals. J Clean Prod. 2017;151:235–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.049. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. Res 2222 (XXI). 1967. Available from: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2018. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2018/02/oecd-due-diligence-guidance-for-responsible-business-conduct_c669bd57/15f5f4b3-en.pdf Zairi M. Shaping the future of government through excellence: how the UAE Government has taken lead. Int J Excell Gov. 2019;1(1):2–7. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEG-02-2019-0005. Dubey R, Bryde DJ, Dwivedi YK, Graham G, Foropon C, Papadopoulos T. Dynamic digital capabilities and supply chain resilience: the role of government effectiveness. Int J Prod Econ. 2023;258:108790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.108790. Li Q, Shen B, Wang Y. Buyer collaboration in managing supplier responsibility with ESG due diligence effort spillover and fairness concerns. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev. 2023;180:103333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2023.103333. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 28 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 10 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 16 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 23 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 04 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 04 Feb, 2026 First submitted to journal 02 Feb, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8763157","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":595829499,"identity":"1b8929bd-b7c6-4cdd-a83c-5b21c76fca4d","order_by":0,"name":"Dr Mahipal Lather","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Forensic Science University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr","firstName":"Mahipal","middleName":"","lastName":"Lather","suffix":""},{"id":595829502,"identity":"eb06c4f5-adde-4bce-814f-8a1e41376f08","order_by":1,"name":"Poonam Gulati","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Laws, Panjab University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Poonam","middleName":"","lastName":"Gulati","suffix":""},{"id":595829505,"identity":"3e234d98-2901-42fb-a2fd-d8109c2f2063","order_by":2,"name":"Dr. Harsh Kumar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Galgotias University, Noida","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr.","firstName":"Harsh","middleName":"","lastName":"Kumar","suffix":""},{"id":595829506,"identity":"f4da593f-71e9-47ef-93e2-3e570784c214","order_by":3,"name":"Amiya Mahajan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Indian Institute of Foreign Trade","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amiya","middleName":"","lastName":"Mahajan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-02 09:39:38","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8763157/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8763157/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":103534824,"identity":"efa92023-dcc7-460a-a478-3a99596a792b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-26 18:07:43","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":379268,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenchmarking framework designed to assess due diligence practices across the full cislunar supply chain.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8763157/v1/7bb711a1849498c289950946.jpeg"},{"id":104398093,"identity":"d1afe3e2-4aa1-4158-a571-6bd2b2d6365a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 11:59:42","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1642808,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8763157/v1/78b3f594-79db-43c0-b005-6957b42edf33.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eSupply Chain Due Diligence in Space-based Manufacturing and Lunar Resource Extraction: Building Sustainable \u0026amp; Resilient Cislunar Operations\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSpace is entering a production phase. For most of the space age, activity beyond Earth was dominated by states and a small set of government-anchored contractors. Private companies did build rockets, satellites and software, but the underlying model was one of procurement, not independent industrial ecosystems. That boundary is thinning fast. Commercial launch markets, mega-constellations, on-orbit servicing, space-data platforms and private astronaut missions have already created supply chains where firms set strategy, own assets, and compete for markets. The next step is even more structural. Manufacturing in orbit at scale and harvesting lunar resources are becoming the upstream of future space economies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe shift is visible in technology trajectories. Recent surveys on in-space manufacturing document rapid progress from laboratory experiments on the International Space Station to commercial plans for orbital factories, in-orbit assembly, microgravity pharmaceuticals, fiber optics, and additive manufacturing of spare parts and structural components. The drivers are not only scientific. Microgravity can enable purer crystals, defect-free fibers, and novel alloys, and it allows assembly of structures too large for launch fairings. A similar change is underway on the lunar side. ISRU has moved from speculative engineering to practical system design. Reviews emphasise that water-ice extraction in permanently shadowed regions, oxygen and metal production from regolith, and lunar additive construction are key to sustained lunar operations and to reducing dependence on Earth launches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContinuity in production is \u003cem\u003esine qua non\u003c/em\u003e for predictive and decisive supply chains. A cislunar supply chain will include Earth-based inputs such as critical minerals for spacecraft and batteries, propulsion systems, robotics, power modules and AI hardware. It will also include space-based nodes such as orbital manufacturing platforms, propellant depots, transport tugs, relay satellites, and lunar processing plants. This creates a risk governance challenge. Emerging research explores how principles of ethical consumerism and legal accountability from virtual environments, such as the metaverse, can inform governance frameworks for nascent digital and physical markets, including those for space-derived products [1].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHarms can arise far from populations and regulators, making responsibility easier to deflect. Physical and environmental externalities in orbit and on the lunar surface can be long-lived or irreversible. Private firms operate under state licences, yet their business models are globally networked and often financed by international capital.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupply chain due diligence is already a live subject in terrestrial industries. Governments and investors now expect firms to trace inputs for forced labour, conflict minerals, deforestation, unsafe work, emissions and hazardous waste. The move from voluntary ESG [2]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eto binding duties is expressly emphasised in the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and related national statutes, which require organised risk management across value chains. There is no reason to think that these expectations at the K\u0026aacute;rm\u0026aacute;n line. The bigger question is how to translate due diligence to a domain governed by public international law that assigns primary responsibility to states but relies on private execution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper asks three most relevant connected questions, viz., how should cislunar supply chains be mapped for due diligence purposes? What risk categories matter in space-based manufacturing and lunar extraction, including human rights, environmental, governance and cybersecurity risks? And what due diligence model fits a hybrid public-private, AI-rich, remote industrial environment? The paper uses a doctrinal, comparative method. It reads space treaties, Artemis principles, national space resource laws, debris and planetary protection standards, besides terrestrial due diligence statutes and supply chain resilience research. It then proposes a due diligence cycle and a benchmarking-oriented indicator set that can guide early empirical work and practice.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe current era calls for sustainable and resilient supply chains that direct operations from concepts of foundational efficiency and risk management to optimum due diligence frameworks, specifically encompassing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria. As human activity expands into space, space-based manufacturing and lunar resource extraction are emerging as important new areas of development. In this context, the need to build sustainable and resilient cislunar operations is becoming unavoidable for continued research, international cooperation, and the adoption of sound, end-to-end management practices. This literature review brings together key findings from recent scholarship on integrated supply chain due diligence, the balance between cost and risk, environmental responsibility, and the role of technological innovation in space-based manufacturing and lunar resource extraction. Current research also confirms that strong ESG practices and thorough due diligence are not optional add-ons. They are central to long-term performance, risk control, and operational resilience. Tamayo-Torres et al. [3] argue that addressing controversies in supply chains should not be treated as a narrow compliance task. Instead, it is a practical requirement for improving both sustainability outcomes and financial results. Truant [4] builds on this point through a systematic review, showing that ESG considerations are increasingly being integrated into supply chain management and that responsible business conduct can support competitive advantage. Bade [5], in a study of the pharmaceutical sector, reports that organisations with higher sustainability maturity tend to have stronger supply chain security. Their findings indicate that due diligence is very important and more than a mere reporting requirement. It functions as a practical tool for strengthening systemic resilience in complex supply networks where risks are high and disruptions can spread quickly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe importance of buying firm in governing supplier sustainability is highlighted by Ahmed and Shafiq [6], wherein the authors confirm that when the buyer\u0026rsquo;s power and legitimacy are coupled with sustainability, it leads to major improvement in supplier sustainability performance. Cao et al. [7] emphasise that buyer-seller governance relationships raise difficult questions of fairness and cost distribution. They show that ESG due diligence can influence how buyers collaborate to manage supplier responsibility, and they highlight that the implementation works best when the added costs are shared in a fair and workable way. Buyer-seller governance can complicate questions of fairness and how costs are shared. Studies on ESG due diligence and buyer collaboration in managing supplier responsibility show that implementation is more effective when the added compliance, monitoring, and reporting costs are allocated through equitable and workable cost-sharing models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSchleper et al. [8] starkly presented the challenge of equitable distribution, suggesting that the due diligence costs must be fairly distributed to respite the most vulnerable actors in the supply chain, especially in the case of nascent, high-cost space supply chains, where due diligence costs, if unfairly allocated, can weaken participation by smaller suppliers and undermine resilience. Space Missions require the incorporation of comprehensive risk management, as discussed by Sawik [9]. The proper identification and mitigation of supply chain disruptions, including resource shortages, transportation delays, environmental hazards, etc, are essential for the success of space missions. The use of big data analytics and continuous monitoring can enhance risk detection and response, supporting agile and robust supply chains [10].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGervais et al. [11] show that effective due diligence is, by its nature, risk-based and supports accountability frameworks for lead firms. They argue that due diligence should be targeted according to the severity and likelihood of ESG harms at particular points in a supply chain. They illustrate this approach through a quantitative model focused on the use of silver in photovoltaic supply chains. G\u0026uuml;ndogdu et al. [12] show that, when ESG risks are clearly identified, firms can respond by building environmentally sensitive competitive strategies and by placing due diligence at the centre of business planning. Their analysis of a multinational logistics company indicates that due diligence can function as part of the core strategy rather than as a separate compliance task. Gulati and Arora [13] also argue that entrepreneurship and innovation are key drivers for moving from linear to circular supply chain models. They suggest that such a shift is especially important for sustainable extraterrestrial operations, where resource constraints and end-of-life planning demand circular design and recovery practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRao et al. [14], drawing on Business and Human Rights principles, propose a due diligence framework to hold retail corporations accountable for food waste. They argue for a proactive and preventive duty that extends across the supply chain, rather than a narrow focus on end-stage disposal. A similar logic applies to reducing environmental impact on the Moon. If in-situ resource utilisation (ISRU) is to be scaled responsibly, operators must manage its byproducts in a planned and controlled manner so that waste, dust, and other residues do not become long-term sources of harm. ISRU can help prevent lunar surface contamination and support long-term sustainability [15]. It can also reduce mission costs and logistical burdens by limiting the need to transport materials from Earth. At the same time, ISRU produces waste streams, including slag, excess metals, and released volatiles, which must be managed through well-designed recycling, upcycling, and safe disposal strategies. Ishimatsu et al. [16] conclude that multicommodity flow modelling can help plan lunar operations more efficiently by optimising resource production alongside waste management. Their work suggests that such integrated modelling supports scalability and long-term sustainability in lunar missions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSharma et al. [17] model the main enablers of supply chain decarbonisation through an ESG lens, with the aim of achieving zero carbon emissions. Their argument is especially relevant for sustainable in-situ resource utilisation (ISRU) on the Moon, where relying on traditional, carbon-intensive logistics from Earth is both prohibitively expensive and environmentally unsustainable. In the same direction, Asif et al. [2] explain how due diligence tools and goals are being reshaped by technology and net-zero expectations. They identify Industry 5.0 technologies, including AI and blockchain, as important supports for more transparent and verifiable ESG disclosure. This is directly relevant to cislunar supply chains because many activities will be remote, automated, and difficult to supervise through conventional means (Al-Okaily [18] similarly shows that adopting best practices alongside Industry 4.0 tools such as IoT, blockchain, and big data can drive innovation by enabling real-time monitoring, evidence-based decisions, and sustainability controls that run through the full supply chain lifecycle.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA holistic approach to supply chain management considers the entire lifecycle of space assets, from manufacturing and operation to end-of-life disposal and recycling. Standards for sustainable design, material selection, and repurposing of assets (e.g., satellites) are increasingly important for reducing waste and supporting a circular space economy [19].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe reviewed literature provides the conceptual toolkit by discussing the strategic value of ESG due diligence, the importance of buyer-led governance and equitable cost-sharing, the necessity of risk-based frameworks, and the enabling role of technology for transparency and decarbonisation. Because these studies are grounded in terrestrial regulatory, logistical, and social infrastructures, this paper applies and adapts their due diligence logic to outer space, where governance is legally hybrid, verification is remote, technology dependence is extreme, and sustainability failures can be difficult to reverse. economy [19][9], International cooperation and the establishment of standards for manufacturing, maintenance, and waste management, so that optimising the space mission supply chain involves demand forecasting, inventory management, and efficient transportation routes, is made possible. The development of comprehensive frameworks and international standards will be key to advancing sustainable and resilient space infrastructure [20]; [21].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe central research gap lies in adapting and expanding these established due diligence frameworks to govern the unique ethical, environmental, and operational risks of multi-planetary supply chains, where the stakes for sustainability and resilience are literally astronomical.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Mapping the cislunar supply chain","content":"\u003cp\u003eDue diligence must begin with a realistic mapping of the supply chain. For cislunar activity, the supply chain is best mapped under five interlinked segments that loop rather than terminate as an isolated, distinct segment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1 Earth-based upstream sourcing and fabrication\u003c/strong\u003e: The first segment sits on Earth. It includes mining and processing of critical minerals, manufacture of spacecraft buses, propulsion units, power systems, avionics, sensors, robotics, excavation equipment, additive manufacturing feedstock, and AI chips. It overlaps with known terrestrial risk zones. Cobalt and nickel, rare earth magnets, lithium salts, high-purity aluminium and titanium, and specialised semiconductors all have documented exposure to labour abuse, unsafe work, community displacement and high emissions. Terrestrial due diligence regimes treat these issues as core scope, and space supply chains are not insulated simply because volumes are small. A single high-risk supplier can link an entire lunar project to forced labour or serious environmental harm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2 Launch and ground logistics\u003c/strong\u003e: Launch is usually described as a service, yet it is itself a dense supply chain. It includes propellant sourcing, cryogenic storage, coastal or inland spaceports, range safety systems, insurance markets, maritime transport of oversized hardware, and the industrial ecosystem around launch vehicles. Launch supply chains face safety risk, local pollution from propellant production and combustion, and geopolitical disruption through export controls or sanctions. These disruptions are already visible in terrestrial aerospace markets and can scale as lunar missions increase cadence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.3 Orbital manufacturing and staging\u003c/strong\u003e: The third segment is production in orbit or in cislunar space. This includes operation of stations or free-flying factories, microgravity assembly lines, additive manufacturing, on-orbit quality assurance, storage of produced items, and controlled return to Earth whenever required. It is data-intensive and highly autonomous because immediate human intervention may be limited. It is also the point where debris and collision risk become major external challenges. Orbital manufacturing depends on various factors, to include stable spectrum access and space traffic management, and is regulated through International Telecommunication Union (ITU) coordination and national licensing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.4 Cislunar transport and lunar surface operations\u003c/strong\u003e: The fourth segment covers transport to lunar orbit and surface, and the extraction and processing of lunar materials. It includes landers, rovers, excavators, autonomous processing plants, power generation, dust mitigation systems, resource storage and transfer, and communication relays. Risks here include navigation failures, excavation accidents, dust plume effects that can damage other missions, and interference in scarce areas such as permanently shadowed regions. Artemis-style governance proposes safety zones for deconfliction, but their interpretation and enforcement remain politically sensitive. A lifecycle approach matters at this stage as well. Sustainable design choices, material selection, and end-of-life planning shape debris risk, maintenance burdens, and circularity outcomes across cislunar infrastructure [19].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.5 Downstream utilisation and Earth return\u003c/strong\u003e: The final segment includes the use of lunar-derived propellant for in-space logistics and integration of space-made materials into terrestrial markets. It also includes end-of-life disposal, deorbiting, relocation to graveyard orbits, or long-term storage of defunct assets. Sustainability expectations extend into this segment through circular economy logic and product stewardship. Gulati and Arora [13] support the argument for circular economy logic and innovative, human-centric business models in space.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe key point is feedback. Lunar propellant changes Earth launch demand. Orbital manufacturing can reduce or shift terrestrial extraction. Due diligence must treat these loops as part of risk forecasting, not as distant side effects. Advanced modelling, such as generalised multicommodity network flow models for Earth-Moon logistics systems, can help optimise these feedback loops, ensuring scalable and sustainable operations [16].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Peculiarities of ‘due diligence’ in space","content":"\u003cp\u003eTerrestrial due diligence tools are portable, but their operational logic changes in space.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1 Rationale for \u0026lsquo;benchmarking\u0026rsquo; and performance measurement for due diligence\u003c/strong\u003e: Benchmarking is useful here because \u0026ldquo;due diligence\u0026rdquo; becomes operational only when it is translated into measurable performance expectations, comparable across firms, missions, and time. For cislunar operations, benchmarking should capture both sustainability outcomes and resilience capacity, because supply continuity and safety are inseparable from environmental stewardship and human rights governance in upstream sourcing. This paper, therefore, treats benchmarking as a measurement system that converts legal and ethical duties into indicators that can be audited, compared, and improved through continuous learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2 State responsibility and licensing\u003c/strong\u003e: Under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty [22] (UNOOSA, 2222 (XXI)), states bear international responsibility for national activities in space, including those by private entities, and must authorise and continuously supervise them. Private firms, therefore, operate within a legal web where supply chain harms can trigger not only corporate liability but also state responsibility and diplomatic exposure. This makes due diligence a shared governance task between licensee and licensing state, and not a purely private compliance matter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.3 Non-appropriation and commons legitimacy\u003c/strong\u003e: Article II of the Outer Space Treaty (UNOOSA, 2222 (XXI))[22] bars national appropriation of celestial bodies and resources by sovereignty claims. The Moon Agreement, though ratified by a few major powers, frames lunar resources as a common heritage and anticipates benefit-sharing. Even where non-parties reject its legal force, the commons narrative carries political weight. Lunar extraction thus sits in a legitimacy-sensitive environment. Due diligence in space must therefore include a dimension of public legitimacy and benefit reasoning that goes beyond terrestrial \u0026ldquo;local community\u0026rdquo; paradigms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.4 Remoteness and verification gaps\u003c/strong\u003e: Space operations are remote. Terrestrial due diligence draws heavily on on-site audits, worker interviews and civic monitoring. In orbit or on the Moon, verification relies on telemetry, remote sensing, digital twins, and third-party analytics. Evidence is mediated through software and data links, which raises trust and manipulation risks. This makes transparent, verifiable indicators essential. Here, technologies associated with Industry 5.0, such as AI and blockchain, serve as key enablers for enhancing the transparency and verifiability of ESG disclosure and operational data [2].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.5 Autonomy, AI and adaptive risk\u003c/strong\u003e: Orbital factories and lunar mines will depend on AI and autonomy because of hazard levels and signal delay. AI can optimise operations, but it introduces algorithmic governance risks such as model drift, hidden failure modes, and vulnerability to cyber interference. Due diligence, therefore, must include model risk management and cybersecurity assessment as core scope, not as a peripheral IT add-on.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.6 Irreversibility of harms\u003c/strong\u003e: Debris creation and some forms of lunar contamination are hard to reverse. UN debris mitigation and long-term sustainability guidelines treat prevention as the primary policy lever. In due diligence terms, this shifts emphasis from remediation after harm to prevention before harm. Prevention is the only meaningful remedy for many space externalities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Benchmarking methodology for supply chain due diligence in cislunar operations","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo align the proposed framework with benchmarking scholarship and focusing on performance measurement, this study adopts a structured benchmarking methodology that translates due diligence obligations into measurable and comparable indicators. Benchmarking is used here as a tool for ongoing improvement, not as a one-time exercise. It helps operators, regulators, and other stakeholders compare practices, spot gaps, and identify what works well in complex and high-risk cislunar supply chains. The method follows the following five steps:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, the study defines the main benchmarking domains by focusing on the most important due diligence risks in cislunar operations. These domains include traceability and transparency, environmental care, safety and mission assurance, supplier governance, digital and cybersecurity resilience, and circularity. The choice of domains is informed by well-known due diligence standards and by space law duties, including the OECD Due Diligence Guidance, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the duty of authorisation and continuing supervision under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty (UNOOSA, 2222 (XXI) [22]; OECD, 2018 [23]).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the study sets specific indicators for each domain. Indicators are selected because they relate directly to due diligence duties, can be measured through visible evidence, can be influenced by the operator or its suppliers, and can be checked through records. Each indicator is described with its scope, the type of evidence needed, and how often it should be assessed. This keeps comparisons consistent across different missions and operators.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the method uses a common scoring scale so results can be compared. Each indicator may be scored on an ordinal scale, such as 0 to 3/4. A score of 0 means there is no clear due diligence practice in place. A high score means the practice is well established and can be verified independently. This type of scoring is widely used in benchmarking, where exact performance data may not be available or may be confidential [24].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFourth, the scores are combined at the domain level. The baseline model uses equal weights to avoid giving unfair priority to one risk over another. Where regulators or stakeholders want to highlight certain risks, such as debris control or cybersecurity, the framework can be adjusted through sensitivity analysis and revised weights while still keeping comparisons meaningful.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFifth, the method links results to learning and improvement. The scores are not treated as final rankings. They are used to support corrective steps, improve supplier practices, and strengthen design and operational planning. In this way, benchmarking becomes part of a continuing due diligence process, not a box-ticking exercise.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Quantified illustrative benchmarking application using open-source data","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis illustrative example uses numerical scoring to demonstrate how benchmarking can operate in practice. It relies exclusively on publicly available regulatory and licensing materials so that the assessment remains transparent, comparable, and methodologically strict. No private information or speculative assumptions are used. Four core due diligence indicators are scored because they are cross-jurisdictional in relevance and central to supply chain governance:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eauthorisation and supervision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003etraceability and registration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eenvironmental risk management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003edigital and cybersecurity oversight\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach indicator is assigned a score from 0 to 3. The scores reflect whether relevant requirements exist, the level of regulatory clarity, and the extent to which enforcement authorities have practical powers to monitor compliance and take action.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e below presents the resulting benchmark scores for three jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantified benchmarking of licensing-based due diligence (illustrative)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndicator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnited States\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLuxembourg\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJapan\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthorisation and continuing supervision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraceability and registration obligations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEnvironmental risk and debris mitigation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDigital and cybersecurity governance\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eComposite due diligence score\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(max\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eSource\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompiled by authors from open legislative and regulatory documents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eDisclaimer\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis benchmarking example reflects only a baseline level of regulatory maturity. It does not rank real-world operational performance. Its purpose is to demonstrate that due diligence requirements can be translated into measurable indicators and compared across jurisdictions using publicly available, verifiable evidence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the illustrative table, the United States achieves the highest overall score. Its licensing approach sets relatively clear obligations, supports ongoing supervision, and, within the FAA framework, places explicit emphasis on debris mitigation and mission assurance. Luxembourg performs credibly on authorisation and financial responsibility, but the public record provides less clarity on supplier-level traceability and gives comparatively limited attention to structured digital risk governance. Japan\u0026rsquo;s framework places strong weight on mission safety, yet publicly accessible details remain limited on environmental due diligence and cybersecurity controls across extended supply chains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the example shows that benchmarking is a workable approach for assessing due diligence in space supply chains. Open-source materials can support meaningful comparison even in an emerging sector. The method should become more robust as disclosure standards expand and as digital traceability systems mature and become more widely adopted.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. Benchmarking against terrestrial due diligence regimes","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.1 EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive\u003c/strong\u003e: Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence (CSDDD) requires in-scope companies to identify, prevent, mitigate, and bring to an end adverse human rights and environmental impacts across their \u0026ldquo;chain of activities\u0026rdquo;, supported by monitoring, public communication, and liability-facing enforcement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003edesign (European Union, 2024). It requires risk identification, prevention and mitigation, stakeholder engagement, grievance mechanisms, monitoring, disclosure, and climate transition planning, and it introduces civil liability for negligent failure. Even if implementation is gradual and scope debated, the core architecture redefines due diligence as an ongoing duty of care. The CSDDD\u0026apos;s duty of care aligns with academic frameworks that argue for a proactive, preventative due diligence duty to hold lead firms accountable for impacts, such as food waste, across their value chains, as discussed by Rao et al. [14].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.2 German LkSG and French Duty of Vigilance\u003c/strong\u003e: Germany\u0026rsquo;s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act mandates risk management, annual reporting and remedial action for human rights and specified environmental harms, backed by administrative sanctions. France\u0026rsquo;s Duty of Vigilance law requires large companies to prepare and implement vigilance plans that address serious risks linked to their subsidiaries and supply chains. Where a company fails to comply and harm occurs, it may face civil liability. These types of laws also highlight two main enforcement approaches. In one model, compliance is driven mainly through regulatory supervision. In the other, enforcement is shaped through court scrutiny and civil claims. In both approaches, firms are expected to manage risk through structured processes and to keep clear records that show what controls exist and how they are applied. Contemporary research reaffirms the role of stringent ESG practices and extensive due diligence as integral to strategic performance and resilience. Tamayo-Torres et al. [3] conclude that managing supply chain controversies is not merely a compliance activity, but essential to boost both sustainability and financial performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.3 Implications for space\u003c/strong\u003e: Three implications matter for space supply chains. Due diligence is becoming a duty to prevent foreseeable harms, not only to disclose. Some space resource laws already move in that direction. The UAE space resources regulation conditions authorisation on environmental protection and debris mitigation plans, explicitly linking resource activity to sustainability oversight. The US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, Luxembourg, and Japan laws recognise private rights to extracted resources but anchor them in national licensing and compliance with international obligations. These are early due diligence gateways. Stakeholder and consultation logic is becoming part of due diligence. In space, stakeholders include other missions, scientific users, states, and the broader human interest in a stable commons. Artemis principles of due regard, interoperability and consultation in case of potential interference align with this logic. Monitoring and adaptive review are mandatory under terrestrial law. Cislunar operations evolve quickly, so due diligence must be designed as a continuous cycle supported by real-time data. Truant et al. [4] mention the strategic value argument, which is supported by systematic reviews that confirm that the integration of ESG issues into supply chain management is fundamentally linked to building competitive advantage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.4 Data, cybersecurity and AI model risk\u003c/strong\u003e: Cybersecurity should be framed as a benchmarking dimension with explicit operational metrics, not only as a narrative risk. IoT telemetry, remote sensing, and digital twins help verify due diligence. But they widen attack surfaces across suppliers, software, ground stations, and links. Benchmark minimum cyber standards: third-party assurance coverage, vulnerability fix times, telemetry encryption, command channel resilience, and incident reporting levels. These metrics also build resilience. Studies show digital capabilities and governance boost supply chain strength during disruptions [25].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"8. Risk categories for space-based manufacturing and lunar extraction","content":"\u003cp\u003eDue diligence depends on the scope of risks and challenges it addresses. For cislunar supply chains, the following six categories of risks are important and significantly relevant:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8.1 Human rights and labour risks on Earth\u003c/strong\u003e: Most human rights risks arise in terrestrial upstream supply. Critical minerals and electronics chains are associated with forced labour exposure, informal mining accidents, child labour, gendered exploitation, and community conflicts. Space firms may mistakenly assume that \u0026ldquo;high-tech\u0026rdquo; equals \u0026ldquo;low-risk.\u0026rdquo; Due diligence should follow aerospace and electronics standards by tracing to mine level where feasible, requiring supplier codes, independent audits, and remediation pathways for victims. The importance of buying firm in governing supplier sustainability is highlighted by Ahmed and Shafiq [6], wherein the authors confirm that when the buyer\u0026rsquo;s power and legitimacy are coupled with sustainability leads to major improvement in supplier sustainability performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8.2 Environmental and climate risks on Earth\u003c/strong\u003e: Launch propellant production, vehicle manufacturing, and ground logistics have measurable emissions and local hazards. Launch emissions are a small share of global totals now, yet growing launch frequency can make them regionally relevant. Due diligence should include lifecycle carbon accounting, toxic propellant waste management, and community impact assessments around launch sites. This is a critical step toward supply chain decarbonisation, a complex goal that requires modelling key enablers from an integrated ESG perspective to achieve viable pathways to zero emissions [17].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8.3 Orbital environmental risks and debris\u003c/strong\u003e: In-orbit manufacturing and dense cislunar logistics can create debris through collisions, releases of parts, or irresponsible disposal. OST Article IX requires the avoidance of harmful contamination and adverse changes in space environments. Debris guidelines and traffic management norms are filtering into national licence conditions. Due diligence here is about verifying that design, operations and end-of-life plans keep debris probabilities within accepted tolerance, and funding removal or safe retirement where needed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8.4 Lunar surface environmental and heritage risks\u003c/strong\u003e: The lunar environment is physically delicate. Dust plumes can travel far and abrade instruments. Permanently shadowed regions with water ice carry both economic and scientific value. Scholarly work increasingly treats some lunar sites as heritage or scientific preserves. Due diligence should cover site selection, plume modelling, contamination control, dust mitigation, and respect for heritage and science zones. Similarly, for minimising environmental impact on the Moon, effective management of byproducts from in-situ resource utilisation (ISRU) technologies is essential. ISRU, to prevent lunar surface contamination and support long-term sustainability, [15] can significantly reduce mission costs and logistical burdens.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8.5 Governance and geopolitical risk\u003c/strong\u003e: Cislunar supply chains are exposed to strategic rivalry. Export controls on advanced electronics or propulsion can interrupt production. Sanctions or conflict can affect launch access and ground infrastructure. Resilience-oriented due diligence includes scenario planning, diversified suppliers, transparency on dual-use risk, and stress testing for cross-border interruptions. Space Missions require the incorporation of comprehensive risk management, as discussed by Sawik [9]. The proper identification and mitigation of supply chain disruptions, including resource shortages, transportation delays, environmental hazards, etc, are essential for the success of space missions. Beyond mitigation, resilience-oriented due diligence can inform environmentally sensitive competitive strategies, allowing firms to embed due diligence findings into their core strategic positioning [12].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8.6 Data, cybersecurity and AI model risk\u003c/strong\u003e: Orbital factories and lunar mines are cyber-physical systems. Their control depends on complex communication links. Cyber compromise could trigger safety events, leak sensitive data, or enable covert extraction. Due diligence must include secure-by-design architecture, third-party testing, and documentation of AI decision pathways.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"9. The Cislunar Due Diligence Cycle","content":"\u003cp\u003eBased on the risk map and benchmarking, a due diligence model for space should have four phases and two cross-cutting principles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9.1 Phase one- trace and register.\u003c/strong\u003e Traceability begins before launch. Firms should register critical suppliers [6], materials, subsystems and AI models in a digital chain-of-custody system. Blockchain and product passports can help, but verifiable data is the goal. For lunar extraction, traceability extends to location, quantities removed, processing methods and storage. Existing public registries for spectrum filings and object registration can be expanded into due diligence registers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9.2 Phase two- forecast and rank risks.\u003c/strong\u003e Risk forecasting must combine legal and engineering scenarios. This includes human rights risk indices for terrestrial suppliers, launch failure and debris collision modelling, dust plume simulations, and geopolitical shock analysis. The output should be a ranked risk portfolio tied to each chain segment. Bade et al. [5] suggest that the implementation of new sustainability measures can itself introduce short-term disruption risks, requiring careful assessment of maturity levels and change management capabilities to secure the supply chain. Gervais et al. [11] advocate for a risk-based due diligence approach, prioritising efforts by severity and the irreversibility of harms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9.3 Phase three: prevent and adapt.\u003c/strong\u003e Prevention measures differ by segment. Terrestrial sourcing requires audits, supplier training, and remediation plans. Orbital manufacturing requires built-in redundancy, reliable collision avoidance protocols, passive safe modes, dedicated deorbit funding, and continuous cybersecurity testing. Lunar mining, in comparison, demands buffer zones, slower excavation to reduce plume effects, robust power infrastructure, and secure storage systems. Because operating conditions can shift quickly, operators should combine preventive safeguards with adaptive controls that can respond to changing risks. They also need active monitoring for AI model drift and newly emerging hazards. When these practices are supported by Industry 4.0 tools such as IoT, blockchain, and big data analytics, they can drive innovation by enabling real-time tracking, evidence-based decision-making, and sustainability controls integrated across every stage of the supply chain [18]. Mageto chains [10] discussed the use of big data analytics for enhanced risk detection, supporting such agile and robust supply chains.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9.4 Phase four- verify and remediate\u003c/strong\u003e: Verification in space relies on telemetry, remote sensing and independent analytics. Auditors can use digital twins and situational awareness data to test compliance. Where harms occur, remediation may be terrestrial, such as victim compensation or supplier replacement, and space-based, such as debris removal commitments or site stabilisation measures. Transparency about what cannot be remediated is part of accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9.5 Cross-cutting principle: shared supervision\u003c/strong\u003e: States are internationally responsible, so due diligence should be shared between the licensee and licensing authority. The logic of shared supervision is consistent with buyer collaboration models that address ESG due diligence spillovers and fairness concerns in multi-tier supply chains [26]. States can require due diligence plans as part of authorisation, similar to environmental impact assessments, and can pool risk data through multilateral forums. International cooperation and the establishment of standards for manufacturing, maintenance, and waste management, so that optimising the space mission supply chain involves demand forecasting, inventory management, and efficient transportation routes, is made possible. The development of comprehensive frameworks and international standards will be key to advancing sustainable and resilient space infrastructure [20] [21].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9.6 Cross-cutting principle: legitimacy and benefit reasoning\u003c/strong\u003e: Because lunar extraction touches common claims, due diligence should include a legitimacy audit about benefit distribution. This can involve commitments to open scientific data, shared infrastructure access, or contributions to space sustainability funds, without predetermining a single political model of benefit-sharing. Schleper et al. [8], while discussing benefit distribution, concluded that equitable models must also consider the distribution of operational costs. Research on conflict minerals warns that without fair cost-sharing mechanisms, due diligence costs can be disproportionately borne by the most vulnerable upstream actors, undermining the ethical foundation of the supply chain. Pal and Gulati [1] advocate for future-facing governance models, stakeholder engagement, and the ethical frameworks for new space markets.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"10. Benchmarking indicators for due diligence in cislunar supply chain","content":"\u003cp\u003eBenchmarking translates supply chain due diligence for cislunar activities into operational steps. It converts legal, ethical, and sustainability responsibilities into performance indicators that operators can measure and compare. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents a suggested benchmarking framework designed to assess due diligence across the full cislunar supply chain, including terrestrial sourcing, manufacturing, launch services, in-orbit operations, lunar surface activities, and end-of-life management. The suggested framework is built on a simple premise that due diligence is effective only when it can be measured, audited, and compared across operators and jurisdictions. For this reason, the indicators emphasise comparability, regulatory oversight, and continuous improvement, rather than one-time compliance exercises.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe framework is organised around a stable core reference structure and five indicator domains. The core establishes neutral benchmarking principles that remain constant across mission profiles and regulatory settings. By keeping the reference principles stable, the framework enables results to be compared over time and across different operating environments. Surrounding this core are the following five risk domains that reflect the main governance pressures within cislunar supply chains:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003etraceability and transparency across suppliers and materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ehuman rights and labour safeguards in upstream and contractor networks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eenvironmental and carbon impacts across the lifecycle of space activities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003esafety and mission assurance in high-risk operational environments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eresilience, circularity, and continuity, including redundancy, debris mitigation, lunar surface impacts, and end-of-life recovery\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach domain is operationalised through specific indicators that capture observable governance measures and control practices. Illustrative indicators include supplier traceability mechanisms, emissions and lifecycle reporting, safety and incident metrics, redundancy thresholds, debris-risk mitigation plans, and material recovery or reuse practices. Indicators are scored through ordinal rankings based on publicly available documentation, such as licences, regulatory filings, contractual disclosures, sustainability reports, and other verifiable statements of practice. The individual scores are then consolidated to support oversight and comparative assessment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe resulting benchmark profiles allow operators to compare performance, identify vulnerabilities, track progress over time, and inform decision-making by regulators, licensors, investors, and mission partners. The framework also embeds a feedback loop, using benchmark outcomes to refine engineering design choices, supplier engagement, and risk-mitigation measures. In this way, due diligence is treated as a continuing and iterative governance process, rather than a static compliance requirement.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"11. Sustainability and resilience implications","content":"\u003cp\u003eDue diligence is moral compliance and strategic resilience at once [7]. Visibility and redundancy reduce cascading failures. Cislunar chains are exposed to single points of failure in launch, raw materials, and orbital nodes. Due diligence that embeds redundancy and adaptive AI monitoring builds resilience consistent with broader supply chain resilience literature stressing visibility, flexibility and collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevention protects a fragile commons. Because debris and lunar alteration are hard to reverse, integrating disposal and contamination costs into design is the sustainability core. This resembles terrestrial industries where due diligence shifts risk [11] and cost control upstream. Legitimacy shapes finance. Investors are beginning to price space sustainability risk. Transparent due diligence performance can lower insurance costs and regulatory friction, and may become a condition for licences and market access.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"12. Research agenda","content":"\u003cp\u003eA doctrinal framework should point to feasible empirical work. Comparative licensing studies can code how states embed due diligence in authorisations, comparing the UAE model with the US, Luxembourg, Japan and emerging Indian frameworks. Early lunar missions allow practice mapping. The first legally licensed commercial lunar material transfer by ispace, undertaken under US authorisation and Artemis principles, provides a concrete case for studying how compliance and due diligence are operationalised. Indicator validation can pilot the proposed metrics on satellite constellations and terrestrial mining analogues before adjusting for lunar specifics. AI governance work can study accountability for autonomous decision systems in remote supply chains, linking to emerging research on algorithmic accountability in high-risk industries.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"13. Policy recommendations","content":"\u003cp\u003eRequiring due diligence plans in space resource licences is an immediate practical move. States can demand traceability, debris control, planetary protection, AI governance and end-of-mission funding as licence conditions. Building a multilateral verification infrastructure is necessary for credibility. Shared situational awareness, plume modelling standards, and open extraction registries reduce the risk that any operator is effectively self-policing. Aligning due diligence with future benefit discussions makes governance smoother. Transparency, consultation and prevention are common ground for any eventual benefit-sharing framework, and help avoid a later legitimacy shock.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"14. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eSpace-based manufacturing and lunar resource extraction are on track to become pillars of a new industrial frontier. Their supply chains are long, looped, capital-heavy, and legally unusual. Terrestrial due diligence regimes give a strong baseline, but copying them without translation would miss what makes space distinct. The Cislunar Due Diligence Cycle proposed here aims to translate that baseline into a governance tool fit for cislunar realities. It treats traceability, risk forecasting, prevention, verification and legitimacy as parts of a continuous loop shared by firms and licensing states. It also offers pilot benchmarking indicators so that early missions and regulators can compare performance and learn quickly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe deeper point is that outer space is a commons in law and in moral imagination. Production beyond Earth will be legitimate only if it is done with care for people, for environments on Earth and off Earth, and for the governance order that keeps space open to all. Supply chain due diligence makes that care operational. If it is ignored, the cislunar industry may reproduce the worst habits of terrestrial extraction and secrecy. If it is embraced early, it can help build a resilient, sustainable space economy that remains compatible with international law and long-term stewardship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe paper explains the benchmarking method with clarity and shows how it can be applied using open-source evidence. This approach responds to the need for practical due diligence research that can track performance in real settings. The study also rejects the view that due diligence is only a moral obligation. Instead, it treats due diligence as a measurable capability that organisations can develop, assess, and improve. Firms can evaluate this capability by comparing practices across companies, jurisdictions, and mission contexts. Such comparisons encourage continuous improvement, support regulatory learning across systems, and strengthen the resilience of supply chains.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAuthors 1 \u0026amp; 2 selected the topic and drafted the basic manuscript. All authors contributed to reviewing the literature. Author 3 also contributed to aligning the sections of the paper, and Author 4 contributed, drawing figures, tables, formatting, in-text citation and referencing. All authors reviewed the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePal K, Gulati P. Building Resilient Virtual Markets: connecting ethical and legal consumerism with sustainable development goals in the metaverse. In: Leal Filho W, Kautish S, Gupta VP, editors. Metaverse and Sustainability: Business Resilience Towards Sustainable Development Goals. Cham: Springer; 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-89545-6_22.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsif M, Searcy C, Castka P. ESG and Industry 5.0: the role of technologies in enhancing ESG disclosure. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2023; 95:122806. https://doi.or.1016/j.techfore.2023.122806.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTamayo-Torres I, Gutierrez-Gutierrez L, Ruiz-Moreno A. Boosting sustainability and financial performance: the role of supply chain controversies. Int J Prod Res. 2019;57(11):3719–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1562248.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTruant E, Borlatto E, Crocco E, Sahore N. Environmental, social and governance issues in supply chains. A systematic review for strategic performance. J Clean Prod. 2024;434:140024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140024.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBade C, Olsacher A, Boehme P, Truebel H, Bürger L, Fehring L. Sustainability in the pharmaceutical industry—An assessment of sustainability maturity and effects of sustainability measure implementation on supply chain security. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. 2023;31(1):224–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2564.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmed MU, Shafiq A. Toward sustainable supply chains: impact of buyer’s legitimacy, power and aligned focus on supplier sustainability performance. Int J Oper Prod Manag. 2022;42(3):280–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-08-2021-0540.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCao Y, Li Q, Shen B, Wang Y. Buyer collaboration in managing supplier responsibility with ESG due diligence effort spillover and fairness concerns. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev. 2023;180:103333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2023.103333.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchleper MC, Blome C, Stevenson M, Thürer M, Tusell I. When it’s the slaves that pay: in search of a fair due diligence cost distribution in conflict mineral supply chains. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev. 2022;164:102801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2022.102801.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSawik B. Space Mission Risk, Sustainability and Supply Chain: review, multi-objective optimisation model and practical approach. Sustainability. 2023;15(14):11002. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411002.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMageto J. Big Data Analytics in Sustainable Supply Chain Management: a focus on manufacturing supply chains. Sustainability. 2021;13(13):7101. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137101.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGervais E, Kleijn R, Nold S, van der Voet E. Risk-based due diligence in supply chains: the case of silver for photovoltaics. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2023;198:107148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107148.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGündoğdu HG, Aytekin A, Toptancı Ş, Korucuk S, Karamaşa Ç. Environmental, social, and governance risks and environmentally sensitive competitive strategies: a case study of a multinational logistics company. Bus Strategy Environ. 2023;32(7):4015–5120. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3398.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGulati P, Arora S. Human entrepreneurship in circular supply chain management: a synopsis of theory, practice and future pathways. In: Mathiyazhagan K, Agarwal V, Malhotra S, Scuotto V, editors. Humanizing Circular Supply Chain Management. Cham: Springer; 2025. p. [Page numbers if available]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86562-6_10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRao M, Bernaz N, de Boer A. Holding retail corporations accountable for food waste: a due diligence framework informed by business and human rights principles. J Bus Ethics. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05572-0.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGkaravela E, Chen H. Logistics Analysis for Lunar Post-Mission Disposal. In: AIAA SCITECH 2025 Forum. Reston: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; 2025. p. AIAA 2025 − 1480. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2025-1480.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIshimatsu T, Weck O, Hoffman J, Ohkami Y, Shishko R. Generalised Multicommodity Network Flow Model for the Earth–Moon–Mars Logistics System. J Spac Rockets. 2016;53(1):25–38. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.a33235.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSharma M, Shah JK, Joshi S. Modeling enablers of supply chain decarbonisation to achieve zero carbon emissions: an environment, social and governance (ESG) perspective. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2023;30(31):76718–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27480-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAl-Okaily M, Younis H, Al-Okaily A. The impact of management practices and industry 4.0 technologies on supply chain sustainability: a systematic review. Heliyon. 2024;10(8):e36421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36421.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuitrago-Leiva J, Camps A, Niño A. Considerations for Eco-LeanSat Satellite Manufacturing and Recycling. Sustainability. 2024;16(12):4933. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124933.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSánchez-Flores R, Cruz-Sotelo S, Ojeda-Benítez S, Ramírez-Barreto M. Sustainable Supply Chain Management—A Literature Review on Emerging Economies. Sustainability. 2020;12(17):6972. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176972.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSauer P, Seuring S. Sustainable supply chain management for minerals. J Clean Prod. 2017;151:235–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.049.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. Res 2222 (XXI). 1967. Available from: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2018. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2018/02/oecd-due-diligence-guidance-for-responsible-business-conduct_c669bd57/15f5f4b3-en.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZairi M. Shaping the future of government through excellence: how the UAE Government has taken lead. Int J Excell Gov. 2019;1(1):2–7. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEG-02-2019-0005.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDubey R, Bryde DJ, Dwivedi YK, Graham G, Foropon C, Papadopoulos T. Dynamic digital capabilities and supply chain resilience: the role of government effectiveness. Int J Prod Econ. 2023;258:108790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.108790.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi Q, Shen B, Wang Y. Buyer collaboration in managing supplier responsibility with ESG due diligence effort spillover and fairness concerns. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev. 2023;180:103333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2023.103333.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"space-and-planetary-resources","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Space and Planetary Resources](https://link.springer.com/journal/44461)","snPcode":"44461","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44461/3","title":"Space and Planetary Resources","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"space-based manufacturing, lunar resource extraction, in-situ resource utilisation (ISRU), supply chain due diligence, space sustainability, cislunar resilience, ESG, space law","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8763157/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8763157/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eSpace is moving from episodic missions to continuous industrial activity. Space-based manufacturing in microgravity and the extraction of lunar resources through in-situ resource utilisation are now anchored in engineering roadmaps and national regulations, not only in scientific aspiration. Reviews of in-space manufacturing show a steady shift toward orbital assembly lines, additive manufacturing, and on-orbit servicing as enabling infrastructure for a growing commercial space economy. In parallel, technical literature on lunar ISRU highlights water-ice excavation, oxygen production from regolith, and additive construction as prerequisites for extended lunar presence and for cheaper in-space logistics. These developments create a cislunar supply chain that loops between Earth, orbit, lunar orbit, and the lunar surface. The chain is long, capital-intensive, highly autonomous, and legally hybrid, because private operators act under state authorisation and continuing supervision under the Outer Space Treaty. At the same time, terrestrial regulation is hardening supply chain due diligence into binding law. The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive requires large firms to identify, prevent, mitigate and remedy human rights and environmental harms across their chain of activities, with monitoring and liability for failure. This paper is a doctrinal and conceptual study that brings these two trajectories together. It maps the cislunar supply chain, explains why due diligence has distinct features in space, benchmarks early space resource laws and soft-law standards against terrestrial due diligence regimes, and proposes a Cislunar Due Diligence Cycle with concrete benchmarking indicators for sustainability and resilience. The paper argues that due diligence can serve as a practical bridge between state responsibility, private innovation, and the long-term stewardship of orbital and lunar environments.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Supply Chain Due Diligence in Space-based Manufacturing and Lunar Resource Extraction: Building Sustainable \u0026amp; Resilient Cislunar Operations","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-26 18:07:38","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8763157/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-04-28T15:35:46+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-10T09:33:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"336822628243198819227956538179280205093","date":"2026-03-16T13:11:44+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-23T17:47:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-04T13:48:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-02-04T13:46:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Space and Planetary Resources","date":"2026-02-02T09:23:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"space-and-planetary-resources","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Space and Planetary Resources](https://link.springer.com/journal/44461)","snPcode":"44461","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44461/3","title":"Space and Planetary Resources","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"67a5a0b3-a71e-4954-91af-dd846cfd3ede","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 26th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-18T08:38:52+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-26 18:07:38","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8763157","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8763157","identity":"rs-8763157","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}