Eyes in the Sky, Rules on the Ground: ESA’s Non-Political Knowledge and Climate Governance

The European Space Agency (ESA) is a key knowledge producer in climate governance, generating environmental data through space-based Earth observation. Its work forms part of a socio-technical infrastructure in which satellite data do more than measure the environment—they actively shape problem definitions, policy ambitions, and implementation strategies. ESA’s institutional identity emphasizes technical and scientific objectives over political mandates, enhancing the perceived neutrality and legitimacy of its environmental knowledge. Through programmes such as Copernicus or initiatives such Zero Debris approach, ESA stabilizes shared climate indicators that enable coordinated action across governance levels, while simultaneously becoming a site of subtle contestation over data interpretation, access, and use. Based on extensive archival research in ESA archives and employing discourse analysis, this paper investigates how the Agency’s non-political, technical priorities shape the authority, framing, and mobilization of environmental knowledge. The study highlights how neutral expertise can stabilize environmental metrics, guide policy, and structure action, while simultaneously generating sites of contestation over interpretation, access, and use. In governance contexts ESA illustrates the consequential interplay between technical expertise, environmental responsibility, and policy influence. Understanding ESA’s knowledge production sheds light on how science and technology infrastructures can shape climate governance, balancing neutrality with practical and political impact. The paper seeks to answer following research questions: t addresses the following research questions: (RQ1) How does the institutional primacy of non-political, technical objectives within ESA shape the discursive construction and perceived legitimacy of environmental knowledge in climate governance? (RQ2) How do ESA-produced environmental indicators become sites of political meaning and contestation when they are translated into policy ambitions, implementation practices, and accountability mechanisms across governance levels?