Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
What Is a Sustainable Coworking Space?
Kolja Oswald * and Xiaokang Zhao *
Glorious Sun School of Business and Management, Donghua University, Shanghai 201620, China
*Correspondence: 415039@mail.dhu.edu.cn or koloswald@gmail.com (K.O.); zxk@dhu.edu.cn (X.Z.)
Received: 23 November 2020; Accepted: 13 December 2020; Published: 16 December 2020
Abstract:
Coworking is a trend that is becoming increasingly popular and is often associated with
sustainability. However, a lack of consensus exists on what a sustainable coworking space is. This
study addresses this by investigating what is currently understood by a sustainable coworking
space. Q-methodology is used to analyze 27 participants’ subjective ideas about what a sustainable
coworking space is, resulting in four distinct perspectives. The four perspectives are identified
as follows: 1. “New Work”, 2. “Resourceful Society”, 3. “Incubator, and 4. “Environmental”.
These perspectives have distinct opinions on what important sustainability aspects in the context of
coworking spaces are. Whilst some prioritize environmental and community factors, others have a
mixed focus. Additionally, the four perspectives share some common beliefs. All of them believe in
the importance of sustainable mobility, as well as in the moderate importance of encouraging their
members to be socially responsible. These findings offer insight into the different understandings of
coworking space sustainability. This is important because currently this field is under-researched,
and a more systematic approach to sustainability in this field is needed. This research lays the
foundation to do so and helps work toward a better understanding of coworking in a sustainability
and innovative context.
Keywords: coworking space; sustainability; sharing economy; Q-methodology; open innovation
1. Introduction
Over the past decade, coworking has become increasingly popular. At present there are about
20,000 projected coworking spaces worldwide, and this number is expected to double by 2024 [
1
].
The rising trend of coworking shows a shift in the way humans work and is supported by the Fourth
Industrial Revolution, that is changing how companies conduct business [2].
Coworking is known as being a practice within the sharing economy, as it encourages the sharing
of office space, social space, and office infrastructure [
3
]. New technologies are creating more efficient
consumption patterns whereby resources are shared [
4
]. As we move toward smart cities, the growth
of coworking has the ability to shape industries and cities as a whole [
5
]. The transformational
shift toward coworking may have the ability to increase economic welfare in a sustainable way [
6
,
7
].
Proponents of coworking often claim that sustainability is one of the core values of coworking, with
a major global community of coworking spaces including it as a core value within its coworking
manifesto [
8
,
9
]. It is believed that coworking spaces can be sustainable in their design and practice
sustainable business models [
10
]. However, there is no consensus on what a sustainable coworking
space entails.
It is reasonable to assume that a coworking space may not be inherently sustainable, and that
there are certain factors that are especially relevant when creating a sustainable coworking space.
Researchers have identified factors that may be important to a sustainable coworking space, such
as environmental sustainability, sustainable mobility, and economic sustainability [
11
,
12
]. Yet, there
is no clear answer or framework that constitutes what a sustainable coworking is. Thus, there is a
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547; doi:10.3390/su122410547 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 2 of 21
clear need to establish an understanding of what a sustainable coworking space is to establish a better
understanding of the industry and its sustainability.
This paper contributes to this effort by elaborating on what a sustainable coworking space is
believed to be. Using Q-methodology, this paper addresses the research question “What is a sustainable
coworking space?” to develop four distinct perspectives on what a sustainable coworking space is. By
uncovering these perspectives, the understanding of sustainability in the context of coworking spaces is
expanded upon, offering a contribution to understanding the what and how of sustainable coworking
spaces. The understanding of sustainability in the context of coworking is particularly important, as
the Fourth Industrial Revolution is changing production and consumption. Whilst entrepreneurship
has seemingly been in decline in the recent past, new phenomena such as coworking spaces may offer
the ability to encourage an open innovation economy, potentially fostering new business [
13
,
14
]. As
such, it is important to assess the sustainability of the coworking space phenomenon.
Q-methodology is suitable here because this research is exploratory in nature and seeks to uncover
the subjective perceptions of the individuals that manage, own, and work with coworking spaces,
and to understand their views. This investigation is therefore of an exploratory nature, and as such
Q-methodology is applied. Q-methodology is a research methodology that is used to gather people’s
subjective perceptions on a certain topic [
15
]. This method was deemed applicable, as sustainability is
a popular topic among coworking space owners and managers, whilst the current research on this
topic is lagging behind. Unravelling these perspectives can help advance academia’s understanding.
As Q-methodology is a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach, giving the researcher a systematic
framework to conduct research with, this methodology was seen as a suitable method with adequate
academic rigor [16].
The structure of this paper is as follows. Section 2covers the theoretical background on
sustainability, coworking, and the sharing economy. Section 3covers the methodology used within
this study. Section 4presents the results, and Section 5presents the discussion. Lastly, Section 6covers
the conclusion, limitations, and suggestions for further research.
2. Theoretical Background
Sustainability research in the context of coworking spaces is still in its infancy. It has been
acknowledged that, from an entrepreneurial and economic perspective, coworking spaces need to
be sustainable [
11
]. It seems clear that internal factors within coworking spaces determine their
economic sustainability [
17
]. From an economic perspective, the sustainability of a coworking space is
partly determined by the level of continuous demand and occupancy of the space [
18
]. Furthermore,
whilst business sustainability has been somewhat investigated, there is little existing research on other
sustainability factors within coworking spaces. Environmental sustainability is an aspect that has
been mentioned, yet no major findings have been reported [
18
]. Similarly, some research shows links
between the climate of a coworking space and the sustainable business model outcomes of its member
firms [
12
]. On the other hand, another study finds no causal relationships between the coworking
space community and sustainability [
19
]. Another sustainability aspect that has been discussed in
the context of coworking spaces is sustainable mobility. In theory, the creation of coworking spaces
reorganizes the way people go to work. As this often occurs in urban environments, it may reduce
the use of less sustainable means of transport and encourage the use of bicycles and public transport.
Thus, Lejoux et al. identify sustainable mobility as a promising topic in this context. They also state
that whilst there is a suggested link, there are no clear findings yet [15].
Thus, as of now there is a clear lack of understanding as to how coworking spaces can be
sustainable. So far there are only fragmented findings, and there is no framework showing what a
sustainable coworking space is. This is an important research gap to address because currently there
is an inability to assess the sustainability of coworking spaces. Whilst coworking spaces have been
discussed as generally having sustainable business models, no further analysis has been made in
regards to different sustainability aspects of coworking space business models [20].
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 3 of 21
In order to identify what a sustainable coworking space business model is, it is important to define
the term sustainable business model. Geissdoerfer et al. reviewed existing literature on sustainable
business models and aggregated eight selected definitions, to define them as “business models that
incorporate pro-active multi-stakeholder management, the creation of monetary and non-monetary
value for a broad range of stakeholders, and hold a long-term perspective of stakeholders, and hold a
long-term perspective.” ([
21
], p. 403–404). Additionally, a sustainable business model may be viewed
from a triple bottom line perspective, including an economic, an environmental, and a social layer [
22
].
This is important to consider, as coworking spaces may emphasize these layers differently, potentially
resulting in various sustainable business models.
To further understand different types of sustainable business models, it is helpful to look at
Bocken et al.’s eight archetypes of a sustainable business model framework [
23
]. This model gives
insight into the theoretical and practical context of a sustainable business model. The eight archetypes
are categorized into technological, social, and organizational groupings, and each archetype has
multiple examples of sustainable business models [
23
]. Moreover, it gives a comprehensive overview
of sustainable business models, suggesting that multiple archetypes may apply to coworking spaces.
This framework was found to be particularly applicable to coworking spaces, as they may exhibit a
range of different business models, potentially creating different sustainability implications [
24
]. Thus,
Bocken et al.’s framework is considered particularly applicable in this context and is in part used as a
theoretical foundation for this research [23].
Moreover, as coworking is a practice belonging to the sharing economy, sustainability aspects of
the sharing economy may be relevant to coworking spaces’ sustainability aspects [
25
]. The sharing
economy consists of activities “where economic agents share economic objects together to create
values” [
13
]. It is commonly accepted that business models within the sharing economy have the
potential to create more sustainable consumption patterns, as they may have a positive economic,
social, and environmental impact [
26
]. Whilst it is argued that sharing economy businesses may shift
global production and consumption patterns toward a more sustainable future, Laukkanen and Tura
found that, from a sustainability perspective, the sharing economy cannot be discussed as a whole, but
a fragmented discussion is necessary [
27
,
28
]. They found that different business models within the
sharing economy had distinct sustainability aspects, once again illustrating that there may be multiple
types of sustainable business models within the context of coworking spaces.
Collaborative consumption, a major sharing economy phenomenon that is also observable in
coworking spaces, is said to reduce unnecessary consumption, by reducing resource use, and creating
a more sustainable system that addresses human needs [
29
]. It has been reported that collaborative
consumption is in part motivated by the sustainability aspect itself, meaning that consumers choose
this practice mainly because it seems more sustainable [
30
]. Similarly, technological openness and open
innovation may boost technological innovations, which can increase the economic sustainability of
coworking spaces [
31
]. This is because knowledge sharing is understood to be key in facilitating open
innovation, which means that the sharing economy fosters open innovation as long as it facilitates
knowledge exchange [
32
,
33
]. However, it is often unclear to what extent business models within the
sharing economy are sustainable. At times, certain sectors of the sharing economy may have exhibited
non-sustainable practices [
34
]. It is thereby clear that not all sharing economy practices are by default
sustainable [
35
]. Whilst the direct economic transaction effects caused by the sharing economy are
bound to be positive from a sustainability perspective, indirect economic effects and environmental
effects are more complex and harder to assess [
36
]. It is therefore impossible to state whether a sharing
economy phenomenon such as coworking is categorically sustainable or not, and a nuanced analysis
is necessary. The fashion industry is an example of an industry where direct effects of collaborative
consumption and resource sharing have been observable, yet where the sustainability effects of the
sharing economy have been complex and hard to generalize [
37
]. Something similar may be observable
in the coworking industry, where it may not be possible to assess sustainability on a meta level.
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 4 of 21
Curtis and Lehrer give insight into five semantic properties of the sharing economy that signal a
sustainable approach. Firstly, the sharing economy is mediated by Information and Communications
Technology. This means that technology offers the opportunity for the sharing economy to be scalable.
Secondly, there is a motivation for non-ownership of the products. Thirdly, consumers only get
temporary access to the products. Fourthly, the consumption of goods is rivalrous in nature. Lastly,
the goods within the sharing economy are tangible [
38
]. These five semantic properties are useful
in assessing the sustainability of parts of the sharing economy. Moreover, a large sustainability
emphasis within the sharing economy is reported to be of environmental nature, with the majority
of sustainability aspects being environmental [
39
]. Other reported sustainability dimensions within
the sharing economy include the social, economic, spatial, and temporal dimensions [
40
]. Similarly,
Daunoriene et al. identify the four major sharing economy sustainability perspectives as economic,
environmental, societal, and technological [41].
Altogether, it is clear that sustainability is a commonly discussed theme within sharing economy
research, yet there does not seem to be a homogenous approach [
39
]. Whilst coworking spaces
commonly show key sustainable practices such as resource sharing, a consensus on homogenous
sustainability aspects does not exist. This makes a sustainability analysis difficult. As the case-by-case
assessment of sustainability is complex and nuanced, it is as of now impossible to objectively define a
sustainable coworking space business model. Thus, exploratory research is needed to better understand
the sustainability aspects of coworking spaces and to move toward an objective sustainability assessment
of them.
This exploratory Q-methodology study uses Bocken et al.’s framework along with Q-methodology
to develop a greater understanding of the interpretations of what sustainable coworking spaces are [
24
].
The analysis of subjective opinions of what a sustainable coworking space is will result in a greater
understanding of the sustainability aspects emphasized within coworking spaces, helping us move
closer to a transparent sustainability assessment of coworking spaces.
3. Methodology
In order to work toward a better understanding of what a sustainable coworking space is, this
research paper uses Q-methodology to explore what coworking space owners, managers, and industry
experts believe a sustainable coworking space is. Q-methodology is a mixed-method research technique
that consists of both qualitative and quantitative research stages [
42
]. Q-methodology is applicable
when studying subjectivity, as it helps understand people’s subjective opinions, beliefs, and attitudes
about a certain topic [
17
]. Q-methodology has proven to be a suitable research technique when it comes
to sustainability research, as it offers a rigorous approach to subjectivity and can result in valuable
policy implications [43].
Within the research field of sustainability, Q-methodology has been used several times. For
example, one study investigated the subjective opinions of city officials about sustainability, identifying
sustainability perspectives on urban design, economic development, and civic engagement [
44
].
Similarly, another paper used Q-methodology to investigate the perspectives of participants of a
sustainable agriculture initiative, identifying technological and production function perspectives to
be key sustainability perspectives [
45
]. In this case, Q-methodology is used to study the opinions
that coworking space owners, managers, and experts have on what a sustainable coworking space is.
Q-methodology studies follow a five-step approach that is adhered to in this research [
16
]. These five
steps are:
1. Creating a concourse of communication known as the Q sample.
2. Selecting research participants known as P-set.
3. Performing the Q sort, where participants sort sampled statements.
4. Analyzing the Q sort using factor analysis.
5. Interpreting the factor analysis and identifying perspectives.
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 5 of 21
The detailed use of this five-step approach is discussed below.
3.1. Q Sample
The first step is to create a concourse. A concourse needs to enable participants to display different
perspectives and, as such, contains all relevant topics and meanings associated with the topic [
16
].
The concourse may be collected from various primary and secondary research sources and should
represent existing opinions and beliefs about the topic [46].
In this case, the concourse was created in the following systematic manner. First, Bocken et al.’s
sustainable business model archetype framework was used as guidance [
24
]. Their sustainable
business model archetype framework was used to sort sustainability statements into categories and
sub-categories, with groupings used as categories and archetypes used as sub-categories.
This guaranteed a comprehensive concourse that covered a wide array of sustainability aspects
of coworking space business models. Second, 42 written narratives from coworking spaces about
sustainability were examined. These were retrieved from the websites of coworking spaces, as well as
social media and blog posts made by coworking spaces. These texts were broken down, and statements
were identified and sorted into the eight categories as statements. The requirement for each statement
was that it appeared in more than two sources. Using written narratives to gather statements for
the concourse is considered an appropriate technique, and using these narratives it was possible to
gather over 60 sustainability statements [
9
]. Third, these statements were evaluated by reducing
redundancies and asking six coworking space owners and managers for feedback and completeness.
Finally, a sample of 35 sustainability statements was derived that was deemed comprehensive, because
both secondary and primary sources did not offer any additional insights. Tables 1–3shows the 35
sustainable statements sorted into Bocken et al.’s framework by category and sub-category [24].
Table 1. Sustainability statements 1–17.
# Category Sub-Category Statement
1 Technological Material Productivity and Energy
Efficiency Installing an efficient lighting system
2 Technological Material Productivity and Energy
Efficiency Installing an efficient water usage system
3 Technological Material Productivity and Energy
Efficiency Minimizing paper waste
4 Technological Material Productivity and Energy
Efficiency Minimizing plastic waste
5 Technological Material Productivity and Energy
Efficiency Implementing an efficient HVAC system
6 Technological Material Productivity and Energy
Efficiency
Saving space and resources by creating an
efficient office design
7 Technological Material Productivity and Energy
Efficiency
Complying with building sustainability codes
(such as LEED)
8 Technological Create value from waste Implementing an effective recycling strategy
9 Technological Create value from waste Using reclaimed materials for construction of
the coworking space
10 Technological Create value from waste Using reclaimed materials for furniture of the
coworking space
11 Technological Create value from waste Using an existing building and renovating it,
instead of building a new one.
12 Technological Create value from waste Implementing a composting strategy.
13 Technological Substitute with renewables and
natural processes
Using renewable energy (such as solar energy)
to power the coworking space.
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 6 of 21
Table 1. Cont.
# Category Sub-Category Statement
14 Technological Substitute with renewables and
natural processes
Using Low Volatile Organic Compounds paint
at the coworking space.
15 Technological Substitute with renewables and
natural processes
Creating a green interior coworking
environment.
16 Technological Substitute with renewables and
natural processes
Creating a green exterior coworking
environment.
17 Technological Substitute with renewables and
natural processes
Using eco-friendly cleaning products in the
coworking space.
Table 2. Sustainability statements 18–27.
# Category Sub-Category Statement
18 Social Deliver functionality
rather than ownership Flexible access to the coworking space around the clock.
19 Social Deliver functionality
rather than ownership
Sharing office infrastructure such as meeting rooms,
printers, and internet access.
20 Social Deliver functionality
rather than ownership
Creating a communal kitchen and/or caféfor members to
share.
21 Social Deliver functionality
rather than ownership
Creating an open office layout to increase communication
among members.
22 Social
Adopt a stewardship role
Having the coworking space be near to public transport.
23 Social
Adopt a stewardship role
Offering healthy food choices to members.
24 Social
Adopt a stewardship role
Offering additional health-related services such as yoga
classes or gym access
25 Social
Adopt a stewardship role
Sourcing organic beverages and/or snacks in the
coworking space.
26 Social Encourage sufficiency Encouraging members to be socially responsible
27 Social Encourage sufficiency Encouraging members to walk, bike, or carpool to work.
Table 3. Sustainability statements 28–35.
# Category Sub-Category Statement
28
Organizational
Repurpose for society Placing people over profit
29
Organizational
Repurpose for society Creating a strong community within the
coworking space
30
Organizational
Repurpose for society Using the coworking space to support social causes
31
Organizational
Repurpose for society Encouraging the formation of social enterprises
32
Organizational
Develop scale-up
solutions
Encouraging collaboration among members of the
coworking space.
33
Organizational
Develop scale-up
solutions
Helping member firms/individuals expand
their business
34
Organizational
Develop scale-up
solutions
Focusing on long-term sustainability over
shot-term profits.
35
Organizational
Develop scale-up
solutions
Creating strong relationships with sustainable
businesses outside of the coworking space.
3.2. P-Set
Since Q-methodology is an intensive mode of analysis, purposive sampling should be used to
maximize the study’s quality in data [
16
]. Participants should be selected strategically, by finding
participants that may have distinct opinions on the topic [
47
]. This is important because the sample
size is comparatively small, and using an effective purposive sampling technique helps generate
richer results.
In this study, the participants were selected strategically. Participants were selected according
to two criteria. Firstly, they had to either have a top-management or ownership position within a
coworking space, or they had to be industry experts within the coworking space industry. Secondly,
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 7 of 21
a specific emphasis was made on recruiting participants that had a focus on sustainability. This was
done by reaching out to coworking spaces with specific sustainability mission statements. As a result,
this sample can be considered as one that is skewed toward the belief in the importance of sustainability
within the coworking context.
The final sample size of this study was 27. Critics of Q-methodology will argue that the often
relatively small sample sizes are not sizeable enough for factor extraction. However, Arrindell and Van
der Ende show in a study that even an observation to a variable of 1.3:1 can be effective, showing that
smaller sample sizes can indeed be effective in factor analysis [48].
Of the 27 participants, 15 were coworking space managers, 10 were coworking space owners,
and 2 were coworking space experts. The 2 coworking space experts were individuals that were owners
of businesses that operated in the coworking industry for several years. All other 25 participants had
more than a year’s experience of managing and/or owning a coworking space.
All participants were informed beforehand that the participation in this study was completely
voluntary and anonymous. A consent form was presented electronically to participants, which
participants confirmed before commencing the Q-methodology study. All of the participants’ data
were kept anonymous at all times, and used solely for the purpose of this study.
3.3. Q-Sorting
The Q-Sort in this study was done using VQMethod [
49
]. VQMethod is an online platform
developed to do Q-Sorting online. Prior to starting the Q-sort, participants were familiarized with
the study and its objectives. Next, participants were asked to engage in a pre-sort. This pre-sort
consisted of sorting the 35 statements into “Extremely important”, “Not important at all”, and “Neutral”
categories, relating to the statements’ importance in regard to coworking space sustainability. Whilst
the pre-sort data was not recorded, this stage was included to help participants get an overview of all
Q-Sort statements before proceeding with the main sort. This is a common step in Q-methodology to
maximize the quality of the Q-Sort.
After the pre-sort, participants were then asked to partake in the main sort. As is visible in
Figure 1, this Q-sort was designed in a quasi-normal grid that ranged from
−
4 to +4. Participants were
asked to rank the 35 statements according to the prompt “Please sort the statements according to how
important they are concerning sustainability of a coworking space. As you can see, the +4 grid denotes
the most important factors of sustainability, whilst
−
4 denotes the least important. Please note that the
vertical location of a statement has no meaning, therefore each statement within a value (+4, +3,
. . .
)
has the same allocated importance” on the
−
4 to +4 grid. As mentioned, the horizontal position was
decisive, but not the vertical one. This means that all statements with the same grid value are assigned
the same value irrespective of their vertical position.
Once participants completed the Q-sort, they were asked to reflect on the statements they ranked
as most important (+4) and least important (
−
4). Lastly, participants were asked to answer a simple
demographic survey.
3.4. Factor Analysis and Intepretation
After the participants completed the Q-sort, a factor analysis was done using PQMethod.
PQMethod is a software created to analyze Q-methodology studies [
50
]. Using PQMethod, a principal
component analysis in combination with varimax rotation were chosen as the factor analysis method.
Principal component analysis and varimax are commonly used in Q-methodology research and are
considered suitable factor analysis tools [
16
,
51
]. Using these tools, four factors were extracted, each
resulting in a distinct perspective. As an additional analysis method, the Q-methodology researcher
is encouraged to investigate the resulting perspectives for suitability, to ensure the quality of the
data [
52
]. This was done, and all four perspectives were deemed relevant. Each factor was checked for
clear distinguishing statements to ensure the quality of data extraction [
53
]. Upon factor extraction,
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 8 of 21
PQMethod was used to analyze the data using the various devices. For the interpretation, the results
were once again compared to the framework created by Bocken et al. [24].
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
Of the 27 participants, 15 were coworking space managers, 10 were coworking space owners,
and 2 were coworking space experts. The 2 coworking space experts were individuals that were
owners of businesses that operated in the coworking industry for several years. All other 25
participants had more than a year’s experience of managing and/or owning a coworking space.
All participants were informed beforehand that the participation in this study was completely
voluntary and anonymous. A consent form was presented electronically to participants, which
participants confirmed before commencing the Q-methodology study. All of the participants’ data
were kept anonymous at all times, and used solely for the purpose of this study.
3.3. Q-Sorting
The Q-Sort in this study was done using VQMethod [49]. VQMethod is an online platform
developed to do Q-Sorting online. Prior to starting the Q-sort, participants were familiarized with the
study and its objectives. Next, participants were asked to engage in a pre-sort. This pre-sort consisted
of sorting the 35 statements into “Extremely important”, “Not important at all”, and “Neutral”
categories, relating to the statements’ importance in regard to coworking space sustainability. Whilst
the pre-sort data was not recorded, this stage was included to help participants get an overview of
all Q-Sort statements before proceeding with the main sort. This is a common step in Q-methodology
to maximize the quality of the Q-Sort.
After the pre-sort, participants were then asked to partake in the main sort. As is visible in Figure
1, this Q-sort was designed in a quasi-normal grid that ranged from −4 to +4. Participants were asked
to rank the 35 statements according to the prompt “Please sort the statements according to how
important they are concerning sustainability of a coworking space. As you can see, the +4 grid denotes
the most important factors of sustainability, whilst −4 denotes the least important. Please note that
the vertical location of a statement has no meaning, therefore each statement within a value (+4, +3,
...) has the same allocated importance” on the −4 to +4 grid. As mentioned, the horizontal position
was decisive, but not the vertical one. This means that all statements with the same grid value are
assigned the same value irrespective of their vertical position.
Figure 1. The Q−chart in VQMethod.
Once participants completed the Q-sort, they were asked to reflect on the statements they ranked
as most important (+4) and least important (−4). Lastly, participants were asked to answer a simple
demographic survey.
Figure 1. The Q−chart in VQMethod.
4. Results
The factor analysis resulted in four extracted factors, as seen in Table 4. The extracted factors as
well as the key statistical indicators can be seen in Tables 4and 5. The four factors had Eigenvalues of
7.1422, 4.7677, 2.5063, and 1.8434, which were all significantly above 1. The number of defining sorts
per factor ranged from three to eight, with factor 4 having three defining sorts, which is higher than the
requirement of two defining sorts per factor [
54
]. The total variance explained by the factors extracted
equaled 60%, which shows that the variance of the principal components selected was considerably
high, and higher than the minimum recommended amount of 50% [
55
]. Additionally, the composite
reliability per factor ranged from 0.92 to 0.97, as can be seen in Table 5.
Table 4. Factor loadings including key statistical calculations.
Participant # Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
1 0.3055 0.4424 −0.0796 0.643 *
2 0.2376 0.7503 * −0.0347 0.3453
30.6815 * 0.1000 0.1107 0.4450
4−0.2090 0.4676 * −0.0520 0.2557
5 0.2951 −0.2118 0.6001 * 0.2232
6 0.4707 −0.1459 0.6149 * 0.1517
70.6228 * 0.0597 0.5358 0.1466
8 0.2965 −0.2035 0.7836 * 0.1888
90.6229 * −0.1783 0.1452 0.0523
10 0.1108 0.5468 −0.0294 0.6733 *
11 −0.3888 0.6030 * −0.3341 0.1920
12 0.5695 * 0.2070 0.2204 −0.3442
13 0.7973 * −0.0765 −0.0670 0.0054
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 9 of 21
Table 4. Cont.
Participant # Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
14 0.0865 −0.1749 0.8436 * 0.2134
15 −0.2955 0.4360 0.2297 0.5503
16 0.1330 0.7269 * −0.0471 −0.1055
17 0.7346 * −0.0881 0.2018 0.0827
18 0.2941 −0.2602 0.5976 * −0.1940
19 0.0897 0.1628 0.6100 * −0.0704
20 0.1158 −0.5430 0.0038 0.0216
21 0.2322 −0.1576 0.2553 0.1750
22 0.7434 * 0.2750 0.2411 −0.0382
23 0.1415 −0.3056 0.5885 * −0.4356
24 0.1774 −0.2102 0.1699 0.6863 *
25 0.7925 * 0.1241 0.1813 0.0957
26 −0.1158 0.1791 0.8153 * −0.0921
27 0.2484 0.7968 * −0.1732 −0.0373
* Indicates defining sort.
Table 5. Key statistical calculations regarding factor loadings.
Statistical Calculations Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
% Explained Variance 19 14 17 10
Number of defining sorts 8 6 8 3
Average reliability coefficient 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Composite reliability 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.92
S.E. of Factor Z-scores 0.17 0.20 0.17 0.28
Eigenvalues 7.14 4.77 2.51 1.84
It is important to note that participants 15 and 21 did not load on any of the four factors
effectively, as seen in Table 5. All other participants were successfully loaded on a single defining
factor. The requirement for this was that the factor explained more than half the common variance,
and that the loading was significant at p<0.05. As is visible, participant 15 had a factor loading of
0.5503 on factor 4, but this did not explain more than half of the common variance, as participant 15’s
loading on factor 4 was smaller than the sum of the squares of all other loadings [
56
]. Thus, 25 of 27
sorts ended up in defining sorts, and the statistical criteria for a successful Q-methodology study were
met. The four extracted factors were identified as the following perspectives:
1. Factor 1: “New Work” Perspective
2. Factor 2: “Resourceful Society” Perspective
3. Factor 3: “Incubator” Perspective
4. Factor 4: “Environmental” Perspective
4.1. “New Work” Perspective
The first factor was defined as the “New Work” perspective and was shared among eight
participants. Figure 2shows the four statements that participants of this perspective believed were
most important, as well as the four statements they believed were least important when it comes to a
sustainable coworking space.
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 10 of 21
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
15 −0.2955 0.4360 0.2297 0.5503
16 0.1330
0.7269 * −0.0471 −0.1055
17 0.7346 * −0.0881 0.2018 0.0827
18 0.2941 −0.2602 0.5976 * −0.1940
19 0.0897 0.1628
0.6100 * −0.0704
20 0.1158
−0.5430 0.0038 0.0216
21 0.2322 −0.1576 0.2553 0.1750
22 0.7434 * 0.2750 0.2411 −0.0382
23 0.1415 −0.3056 0.5885 * −0.4356
24 0.1774 −0.2102 0.1699 0.6863 *
25 0.7925 * 0.1241 0.1813 0.0957
26 −0.1158 0.1791 0.8153 * −0.0921
27 0.2484
0.7968 * −0.1732 −0.0373
* Indicates defining sort
Table 5. Key statistical calculations regarding factor loadings.
Statistical Calculations Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
% Explained Variance 19 14 17 10
Number of defining sorts 8 6 8 3
Average reliability coefficient 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Composite reliability 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.92
S.E. of Factor Z-scores 0.17 0.20 0.17 0.28
Eigenvalues 7.14 4.77 2.51 1.84
4.1. ”New Work” Perspective
The first factor was defined as the “New Work” perspective and was shared among eight
participants. Figure 2 shows the four statements that participants of this perspective believed were
most important, as well as the four statements they believed were least important when it comes to a
sustainable coworking space.
Figure 2. The four statements that the “New Work” perspective most strongly agrees with and
disagrees with according to their Z-Scores.
Figure 2.
The four statements that the “New Work” perspective most strongly agrees with and disagrees
with according to their Z-Scores.
The statements that participants agreed most with revolved around creating a strong community,
having flexible access to the coworking space, encouraging collaboration, and sharing office
infrastructure. As these traits somewhat describe the “co” in coworking, it seems that this sustainability
perspective is about enforcing a new work paradigm that puts collaboration and community at the
center of its business model. Participant 12’s feedback on why creating a strong community is important
was that “it is very important to support each other in order to build a sustainable entrepreneur
ecosystem”. This support can be encouraged by collaboration: as participant 13 points out, “connecting
members to one another removes the owner/founder/staffas the main source of value”. Thus, this
perspective was coined as “New Work”. Additionally, it is worth noting that of the five statements
with the highest Z-Scores, three are of the “social” and two are of the “organizational” category of
Bocken et al.’s framework [24]. This further illustrates the focus of this perspective.
As is visible in Figure 2, implementing a composting strategy, complying with building
sustainability codes, implementing an efficient HVAC system, and offering health-related services
were all deemed as particularly unimportant by participants within this group. This further underlines
a narrow focus on the actual coworking process and a lack of focus on other aspects, especially
environmental factors. In regards to composting, for example, respondent 9 stated “I don’t understand
why we need this”, seeing no apparent use for it and respondent 12 further elaborated that they did
not need one “because no caf
é
”. These explanations show several things. Firstly, the importance of
some sustainability statements clearly depends on certain factors within the coworking space such
as the existence of a caf
é
. Secondly, the lack of understanding for why factors such as composting
may not be relevant may be in part due to a lack of understanding of their utility in a sustainability
context. Similarly, participant 25 stated that “I’m not sure there even are any sustainability codes”.
Thus, the lack of importance given to these factors may be in part caused by a lack of understanding.
Yet, whilst some individuals within this group may have different reasons for ranking statements
as unimportant, it is clear that what unifies this perspective is the strong belief in the importance of
community and collaboration as sustainability aspects.
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 11 of 21
4.2. “Resourceful Society” Perspective
This perspective was defined as the “resource optimization” perspective and had six defining sorts.
However, one of these six sorts was a negative loading. Participant 20 had a factor score of
−
0.5430.
This suggests that participant 20 actually strongly rejected this perspective [
57
]. Therefore, it can be
said that there were five defining sorts within this group that identified with this perspective. Figure 3
shows the statements that this group felt most strongly about. As is visible, the statements with the
strongest positive Z-Scores evolved around optimizing resources from an environmental perspective.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21
Figure 3. The four statements that the “Resourceful Society” perspective most strongly agrees with
and disagrees with according to their Z-Scores.
The participants within this perspective found that using renewable energy was the single most
important sustainability aspect. Participant 11 elaborated on why this statement is very important to
him: “One of the most effective ways to reduce or eliminate the carbon emissions associated with
operating a coworking space is to use 100% renewable energy, preferably on site with energy
storage”. The statement with the second highest Z-score within this perspective referred to using an
existing building instead of building a new one. Participant 16 explained the importance of this:
“Nowadays the expected lifespan of an office building is no more than 60 years and often a lot less.
So, when reusing an existing building it has major positive impact on sustainability”. The third and
fourth highest Z-scores referred to installing an efficient lighting system and encouraging members
to walk, bike, or carpool, which gives further insight into this perspective. It is clear that participants
that are categorized into this perspective view a sustainable coworking space as one that optimizes
its resource use in a sustainable manner. Of the five statements with the highest Z-score, three can be
classified within Bocken et al.’s “technological” grouping, whilst two can be classified as “social
factors” [24]. This further illustrates the emphasis on resource optimization with a social aspect.
This perspective seems to entail not placing a great importance on economic factors, as helping
member firms expand their business and offering a flexible access to the coworking space ranked as
some of the lowest statements in importance. In regards to helping member firms expand their
business, participant 27 stated that it was “important for coworking but not for sustainability”. This
shows that, at least for this participant, sustainability in terms of a coworking space is more resource-
oriented than economic. Similarly, participant 4 stated that flexible access to a coworking space can
actually be detrimental to sustainability, as “access to the coworking space around the clock increases
the carbon footprint as for example light will have to be on”. Moreover, the two health-related
statements ranked very low in importance within this group. Participant 2 felt that offering healthy
food choices to members simply “Isn't necessary.” Participant 27 elaborated further on health-related
services by stating “These services are not relevant to sustainability, they can be found elsewhere.”
Hence, it is clear that this perspective prioritizes direct resource optimization over economic and
health-related sustainability aspects.
Figure 3.
The four statements that the “Resourceful Society” perspective most strongly agrees with
and disagrees with according to their Z-Scores.
The participants within this perspective found that using renewable energy was the single most
important sustainability aspect. Participant 11 elaborated on why this statement is very important
to him: “One of the most effective ways to reduce or eliminate the carbon emissions associated with
operating a coworking space is to use 100% renewable energy, preferably on site with energy storage”.
The statement with the second highest Z-score within this perspective referred to using an existing
building instead of building a new one. Participant 16 explained the importance of this: “Nowadays
the expected lifespan of an office building is no more than 60 years and often a lot less. So, when
reusing an existing building it has major positive impact on sustainability”. The third and fourth
highest Z-scores referred to installing an efficient lighting system and encouraging members to walk,
bike, or carpool, which gives further insight into this perspective. It is clear that participants that are
categorized into this perspective view a sustainable coworking space as one that optimizes its resource
use in a sustainable manner. Of the five statements with the highest Z-score, three can be classified
within Bocken et al.’s “technological” grouping, whilst two can be classified as “social factors” [
24
].
This further illustrates the emphasis on resource optimization with a social aspect.
This perspective seems to entail not placing a great importance on economic factors, as helping
member firms expand their business and offering a flexible access to the coworking space ranked as
some of the lowest statements in importance. In regards to helping member firms expand their business,
participant 27 stated that it was “important for coworking but not for sustainability”. This shows that,
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 12 of 21
at least for this participant, sustainability in terms of a coworking space is more resource-oriented
than economic. Similarly, participant 4 stated that flexible access to a coworking space can actually
be detrimental to sustainability, as “access to the coworking space around the clock increases the
carbon footprint as for example light will have to be on”. Moreover, the two health-related statements
ranked very low in importance within this group. Participant 2 felt that offering healthy food choices
to members simply “Isn’t necessary.” Participant 27 elaborated further on health-related services by
stating “These services are not relevant to sustainability, they can be found elsewhere.” Hence, it is
clear that this perspective prioritizes direct resource optimization over economic and health-related
sustainability aspects.
4.3. “Incubator” Perspective
Perspective 3 had eight defining sorts and was coined the “Incubator” perspective, due to
its focus on helping the community and the businesses within it grow. Figure 4shows this
emphasis. Participants identified a strong community, a focus on long-term sustainability, encouraging
collaboration, and placing people over profit as the statements with highest importance. Participant 19
outlined the importance of a strong community by stating that “This is the heartbeat of a coworking
space and is essential for sustaining a viable space.” Participant 26 explained that focusing on long-term
sustainability helps strengthen this perspective by stating that a long-term mission would “change
the mindset of the people, rather than saving the day”. Participant 8 shines light on the importance
of collaboration by stating that “What can be done in a group with someone who is just few meters
from you who can offer you counseling, opinion and an idea. In other words. Work better together.”
Furthermore, the five statements with the highest Z-scores all belong into the “social” grouping of
Bocken et al.’s framework [
24
]. Thus, the participants within this group believe in the importance of
social sustainability. To them, a sustainable coworking space is one that focuses on a sustainable social
setting, and less on environmental factors.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21
4.3. “Incubator” Perspective
Perspective 3 had eight defining sorts and was coined the “Incubator” perspective, due to its
focus on helping the community and the businesses within it grow. Figure 4 shows this emphasis.
Participants identified a strong community, a focus on long-term sustainability, encouraging
collaboration, and placing people over profit as the statements with highest importance. Participant
19 outlined the importance of a strong community by stating that “This is the heartbeat of a
coworking space and is essential for sustaining a viable space.” Participant 26 explained that focusing
on long-term sustainability helps strengthen this perspective by stating that a long-term mission
would “change the mindset of the people, rather than saving the day”. Participant 8 shines light on
the importance of collaboration by stating that “What can be done in a group with someone who is
just few meters from you who can offer you counseling, opinion and an idea. In other words. Work
better together.” Furthermore, the five statements with the highest Z-scores all belong into the
“social” grouping of Bocken et al.’s framework [24]. Thus, the participants within this group believe
in the importance of social sustainability. To them, a sustainable coworking space is one that focuses
on a sustainable social setting, and less on environmental factors.
This is further corroborated by the four statements that have the lowest Z-score, which all relate
to environmental aspects of sustainability. Participant 23 stated that using Low Volatile Organic
Compounds paint results in “the least contribution to our mission”. Hence, this participant did not
necessarily state that this statement does not have a positive effect, but that it is not a significant one.
Likewise, participant 14 stated that using reclaimed materials for the construction of the coworking
space is not important due to “limitation and cost”. It seems that in general, participants within this
perspective do not dismiss the benefits of certain environmental sustainability aspects, but that they
believe that the focus should be on creating a sustainable coworking space that helps grow a
sustainable and supportive community.
Figure 4. The four statements that the “Incubator” perspective most strongly agrees with and
disagrees with according to their Z-Scores.
Figure 4.
The four statements that the “Incubator” perspective most strongly agrees with and disagrees
with according to their Z-Scores.
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 13 of 21
This is further corroborated by the four statements that have the lowest Z-score, which all relate
to environmental aspects of sustainability. Participant 23 stated that using Low Volatile Organic
Compounds paint results in “the least contribution to our mission”. Hence, this participant did not
necessarily state that this statement does not have a positive effect, but that it is not a significant one.
Likewise, participant 14 stated that using reclaimed materials for the construction of the coworking
space is not important due to “limitation and cost”. It seems that in general, participants within
this perspective do not dismiss the benefits of certain environmental sustainability aspects, but that
they believe that the focus should be on creating a sustainable coworking space that helps grow a
sustainable and supportive community.
4.4. “Environmental” Perspective
The fourth perspective had three defining sorts and was characterized as the “environmental”
perspective. This is because all of the highest loading sustainability statements have a strong
environmental focus, as seen in Figure 5. The highest-ranking statements were all heavily focused
around creating a sustainable coworking space from an environmental perspective. Participant 1
emphasized that “Recycling is very important to reduce the carbon footprint of our coworking space”,
whilst participant 24 explained how composting is important for sustainability because “Food waste
is a big contributor of greenhouse gases.” Additionally, participant 24 stated that implementing an
efficient lighting system is important because “lights use a lot of electricity and are constantly on during
work hours. Therefore, an efficient system will save a lot of electricity.” Furthermore, all of the top five
Z-score statements fit into the “technological” grouping of Bocken et al.’s framework. This further
illustrates the heavy focus on implementing sustainability aspects that have direct environmental
effects and gives further insight into this perspective.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21
4.4. “Environmental” Perspective
The fourth perspective had three defining sorts and was characterized as the “environmental”
perspective. This is because all of the highest loading sustainability statements have a strong
environmental focus, as seen in Figure 5. The highest-ranking statements were all heavily focused
around creating a sustainable coworking space from an environmental perspective. Participant 1
emphasized that “Recycling is very important to reduce the carbon footprint of our coworking
space”, whilst participant 24 explained how composting is important for sustainability because “Food
waste is a big contributor of greenhouse gases.” Additionally, participant 24 stated that implementing
an efficient lighting system is important because “lights use a lot of electricity and are constantly on
during work hours. Therefore, an efficient system will save a lot of electricity.” Furthermore, all of
the top five Z-score statements fit into the “technological” grouping of Bocken et al.’s framework.
This further illustrates the heavy focus on implementing sustainability aspects that have direct
environmental effects and gives further insight into this perspective.
Figure 5. The four statements that the “Environmental” perspective most strongly agrees with and
disagrees with according to their Z-Scores.
As is visible in Figure 5, participants within this perspective did not believe in the sustainability
aspects of using reclaimed materials. Both statements that included this sentiment were sorted as the
two least important statements. This is peculiar, as both of these have an environmental impact,
whilst many other statements within the concourse do not include an environmental perspective.
Concerning this topic, participant 10 mentioned “I think you can use new materials if you need to”,
whilst participant 24 stated that using reclaimed materials for the space was “not an issue for me”.
This seems to suggest that there simply is not a big emphasis on the use of reclaimed materials, and
that this perspective deems other environmental factors more essential. The other two of the four
lowest-ranking statements were centered around health. Regarding healthy food choices, participant
1 stated that “I don't think the diet of our members makes us more or less sustainable.” Furthermore,
participant 1 stated that health-related services “are nice-to-have services, but again not important
for sustainability of our space”. Thus, this perspective heavily focuses on the environmental aspect
of sustainability. The use of reclaimed materials is not part of this environmental focus, and the
sustainability aspects of health are also not seen as priorities.
Figure 5.
The four statements that the “Environmental” perspective most strongly agrees with and
disagrees with according to their Z-Scores.
As is visible in Figure 5, participants within this perspective did not believe in the sustainability
aspects of using reclaimed materials. Both statements that included this sentiment were sorted as
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 14 of 21
the two least important statements. This is peculiar, as both of these have an environmental impact,
whilst many other statements within the concourse do not include an environmental perspective.
Concerning this topic, participant 10 mentioned “I think you can use new materials if you need to”,
whilst participant 24 stated that using reclaimed materials for the space was “not an issue for me”. This
seems to suggest that there simply is not a big emphasis on the use of reclaimed materials, and that this
perspective deems other environmental factors more essential. The other two of the four lowest-ranking
statements were centered around health. Regarding healthy food choices, participant 1 stated that “I
don’t think the diet of our members makes us more or less sustainable.” Furthermore, participant 1
stated that health-related services “are nice-to-have services, but again not important for sustainability
of our space”. Thus, this perspective heavily focuses on the environmental aspect of sustainability.
The use of reclaimed materials is not part of this environmental focus, and the sustainability aspects of
health are also not seen as priorities.
4.5. Similarities in Perspectives
The four perspectives have certain similarities. Table 6shows the factor correlations between the
four perspectives. The strongest communality exists between “New Work” and “Incubator”, with a
commonality of 0.3948. This is understandable, as the “New Work” perspective and the “Incubator”
perspective both embody an emphasis on organizational sustainability aspects. Both perspectives
include the sustainability archetypes “repurpose for society” and “develop scale-up solutions” from
Bocken et al.’s framework in their top-five statements [
24
]. Furthermore, both factors share a Z-score
of 1.97 for the statement “Creating a strong community within the coworking space”.
Table 6. The factor correlation matrix.
Factor “New Work” “Resourceful
Society” “Incubator” “Environmental
“New Work” 1.0000 0.1157 0.3948 0.3390
“Resourceful
Society” 0.1157 1.0000 −0.2307 0.3855
“Incubator” 0.3948 −0.2307 1.0000 −0.0957
“Environmental” 0.3390 0.3855 0.0957 1.000
The “Resourceful Society” and “Environmental” perspectives also have a significant commonality,
amounting to 0.3855. As both the “Resourceful Society” and “Environmental” perspectives have
a high focus on sustainability from an environmental perspective, this is understandable. In both
perspectives, statements that identify with the “Create value from waste” and “Maximise material and
energy efficiency” archetypes are within the top-five statements [
24
]. This shows the commonality
between these two perspectives.
Regarding commonalities among all perspectives, Table 7shows the top five consensus statements.
What is particularly noticeable here is that all perspectives believe that a coworking space should
be close to public transport in order to be sustainable. This suggests that sustainable mobility is a
common sustainability aspect valued among coworking spaces and confirms previous research [
15
].
Furthermore, it seems that all perspectives find encouraging members to be socially responsible to be
somewhat important. Lastly, it is clear that all perspectives believe that a green exterior environment is
not important for coworking space sustainability.
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 15 of 21
Table 7. Top five consensus statements among the four perspectives.
Statement New Work Resourceful
Society Incubator Environmental
Encouraging members to
be socially responsible 1 0 1 0
Creating a green exterior
environment −2−2−4−1
Sourcing organic
beverages and/or snacks −3 0 0 −2
Creating a green interior
environment −1−2 0 −2
Having the coworking
space be near to public
transport
3 3 2 1
4.6. Differences in Perspectives
Table 8shows the top five disagreement statements among all perspectives. These statements give
a good summary of the four distinct perspectives, as four of these five statements show top-ranking
statements among a single perspective. The most disagreed upon statement is the statement with
the second-highest Z-score in the “Environmental” perspective. The second most disagreed upon
statement is the statement with the fifth-highest Z-score in the “Incubator” perspective. The third
most disagreed upon statement is the statement with the second-highest Z-score in the “New Work”
perspective. The fourth most disagreed statement is the statement with the second-highest Z-score in
the “Resourceful Society” perspective. This shows a richness in disagreement, and suggests that the four
perspectives are all distinct in their subjective opinion about the sustainability of a coworking space.
Table 8. Top five disagreement statements among the four perspectives.
Statement New Work Resourceful
Society Incubator Environmental
Implementing a
composting strategy −3 1 −3 4
Helping firms/individuals
expand their business 0−4 3 −1
Flexible access 4 −3−2−1
Using an existing building and
renovating it 1 4 −3−3
Creating a strong community 4 −1 4 1
Table 9further illustrates the uniqueness of each perspective by showing the top three
distinguishing statements that each perspective strongly agrees with and strongly disagrees with. This is
particularly useful in explaining the differences between the perspectives that have high commonalities.
Whilst “New Work” and “Incubator” share certain similarities, “New Work” is unique in its focus
on creating a dynamic work environment, by offering flexible access, sharing resources, and creating
an open office culture. This is different from “Incubator”, where the focus is more on supporting its
members and focusing on long-term sustainability. The two most distinguishing statements between
these factors give further insight into the differences between these two perspectives. Whilst “New
Work” prioritizes a flexible access to the coworking space, “Incubator” does not. Moreover, whilst
“Incubator” prioritizes long-term sustainability, “New Work” does not.
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 16 of 21
Table 9. The top three distinguishing statements that each perspective most strongly agrees with and
disagrees with.
Perspective Most Important Least Important
“New Work”
- Flexible access
- Sharing office infrastructure
- Open office layout
- Implementing HVAC
- Complying with building
sustainability codes
- Using Low Volatile
Organic Compounds
“Resourceful Society”
- Using renewable energy
- Using an existing building
- Encouraging members to
bike, walk, carpool
- Helping member
firms expand
- Creating a
communal kitchen
- Creating an open
office layout
“Incubator”
- Focusing on
long-term sustainability
- Placing people over profit
- Helping firms expand
their business
- Using Low Volatile
Organic Compounds
- Creating a green
exterior environment
- Minimizing paper waste
“Environmental”
- Implementing an effective
recycling strategy
- Implementing a
composting strategy
- Implementing HVAC
- Using reclaimed materials
for furniture
- Saving space by creating an
efficient office space
-
Creating a strong community
As previously mentioned, “Resourceful Society” and “Environmental” also have certain aspects
in common. Table 9shows that “Resourceful Society” is unique in its strong focus on renewable
energy, whilst also focusing on using an existing building and encouraging members to use sustainable
forms of transport. The “Environmental” perspective, on the other hand, is heavily focused on
recycling, composting, and implementing an efficient HVAC system. The difference between the
two is that “Resourceful Society” focuses more on social aspects such as long-term sustainability and
helping member firms expand their businesses, whilst “Environmental” is heavily focused around
environmental statements such as composting, minimizing plastic waste, and recycling.
Examining the differences between these four perspectives, it is helpful to look at Bocken et al.’s
framework once more [
18
]. Figure 6shows the four perspectives mapped out according to their
emphasis on the three sustainable business model groupings: Technological, Social, and Organizational.
This analysis tool shows how each perspective is distinct. The “Environmental” perspective occupies
the technological area, the “Incubator” perspective is fully in the organizational area, whilst “New
Work” and “Resourceful Society” operate in two areas at once. “New Work” has an organizational and
social focus, whilst “Resourceful Society” has a technological and social focus.
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 17 of 21
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21
focused around environmental statements such as composting, minimizing plastic waste, and
recycling.
Examining the differences between these four perspectives, it is helpful to look at Bocken et al.’s
framework once more [18]. Figure 6 shows the four perspectives mapped out according to their
emphasis on the three sustainable business model groupings: Technological, Social, and
Organizational. This analysis tool shows how each perspective is distinct. The “Environmental”
perspective occupies the technological area, the “Incubator” perspective is fully in the organizational
area, whilst “New Work” and “Resourceful Society” operate in two areas at once. “New Work” has
an organizational and social focus, whilst “Resourceful Society” has a technological and social focus.
Figure 6. The four coworking space sustainability perspectives according to Bocken et al.’s three
sustainability groupings [18].
5. Discussion
This study offers an insight into how coworking spaces view sustainability, particularly
coworking spaces that put an emphasis on the topic of sustainability, as participants of this study felt
strongly about the importance of sustainability in the coworking space context. The four perspectives
identified in this study give an insight into four distinct perspectives on what a sustainable coworking
space is. The “New Work” perspective embodies coworking spaces that view sustainability as a result
of sharing resources as well as a thriving community. In a sense, this may be the perspective that is
rooted in functionality, in the sense that this perspective prioritizes key sharing economy functions
such as resource sharing and flexible access. The “Resourceful Society” perspective places a greater
focus on environmental factors such as using sustainable energy, whilst still placing an importance
on the social aspect of encouraging a sufficient use of resources as well as placing the coworking
space close to public transport. The “Environmental” perspective, on the other hand, views
sustainability from a strictly environmental perspective. This perspective seems to focus heavily on
reducing the carbon footprint as a means to achieve a sustainable coworking space. On the contrary,
the “Incubator” perspective views sustainability from an organizational perspective, whereby a
coworking space is sustainable when it creates a long-term oriented community that helps each
member grow.
As the research methodology applied investigates the subjective understanding of participants,
it is important to state that none of these views are incorrect, they merely show a different emphasis.
These findings suggest that each of these four perspectives offer insight into four different approaches
to creating a sustainable coworking space. Simply because the “New Work” and “Incubator”
perspectives show no strong emphasis on environmental factors within this research does not mean
that they do not value the environment. Instead, their prioritized sustainability aspects may be ones
that are crucial for them to thrive as a business, whilst environmental aspects may still be addressed.
Figure 6.
The four coworking space sustainability perspectives according to Bocken et al.’s three
sustainability groupings [18].
5. Discussion
This study offers an insight into how coworking spaces view sustainability, particularly coworking
spaces that put an emphasis on the topic of sustainability, as participants of this study felt strongly
about the importance of sustainability in the coworking space context. The four perspectives identified
in this study give an insight into four distinct perspectives on what a sustainable coworking space
is. The “New Work” perspective embodies coworking spaces that view sustainability as a result of
sharing resources as well as a thriving community. In a sense, this may be the perspective that is
rooted in functionality, in the sense that this perspective prioritizes key sharing economy functions
such as resource sharing and flexible access. The “Resourceful Society” perspective places a greater
focus on environmental factors such as using sustainable energy, whilst still placing an importance on
the social aspect of encouraging a sufficient use of resources as well as placing the coworking space
close to public transport. The “Environmental” perspective, on the other hand, views sustainability
from a strictly environmental perspective. This perspective seems to focus heavily on reducing the
carbon footprint as a means to achieve a sustainable coworking space. On the contrary, the “Incubator”
perspective views sustainability from an organizational perspective, whereby a coworking space is
sustainable when it creates a long-term oriented community that helps each member grow.
As the research methodology applied investigates the subjective understanding of participants,
it is important to state that none of these views are incorrect, they merely show a different emphasis.
These findings suggest that each of these four perspectives offer insight into four different approaches to
creating a sustainable coworking space. Simply because the “New Work” and “Incubator” perspectives
show no strong emphasis on environmental factors within this research does not mean that they do
not value the environment. Instead, their prioritized sustainability aspects may be ones that are crucial
for them to thrive as a business, whilst environmental aspects may still be addressed.
What this research indicates is that it is important for coworking spaces to consider their business
model and their identity in regard to sustainability. Whilst a coworking space may be able to address
sustainability aspects holistically with a triple bottom line approach, addressing economic, social, as
well as environmental issues, it seems clear that a specific business model requires certain sustainability
aspects more than others. For instance, a coworking space that identifies with the “Incubator”
perspective should focus more on fostering a community than a coworking space that identifies with
the “Environmental” perspective.
Nonetheless, focusing on certain sustainability aspects does not simplify sustainability in general.
Existing research shows that sustainability is often claimed, but not always implemented. This means
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 18 of 21
that whilst various coworking spaces may prioritize certain sustainability aspects over others, there
is still a need to comply with standard sustainability aspects. The issue here is the lack of a unified
framework when it comes to urban sustainability, and any effort may best be centered around the three
sustainability pillars: environmental, social, and economic [
58
]. The 35 statements identified within
this study, grouped into technological, social, and organizational categories, may also offer some value.
6. Conclusions
This research has answered the question “What is a sustainable coworking space?” in the eyes of
coworking space owners, managers, and industry experts. In line with Q-methodology, the answer to
this question is not objective, but subjective. It is found that there are four distinct perspectives on
what constitutes a sustainable coworking space that each prioritize different sustainability aspects.
The identification of these four perspectives is a major contribution to coworking space research
because it shows that sustainability is defined differently within the coworking space industry. These
different interpretations of sustainability suggest that there are multiple types of sustainable coworking
space business models. By identifying these four perspectives, we move a step closer to being able to
assess the sustainability of coworking space business models. This is important, as sustainability is
often claimed in the industry, yet a lack of transparency exists as to what the meaning of sustainability
is. This will help in understanding coworking spaces’ functions within a sustainable economy and help
us understand how coworking can be sustainable and contribute toward an open innovation system.
This research offers four approaches to a sustainable coworking space. There is the “New Work”
perspective, that sees a sustainable coworking space as one that emphasizes organizational and social
factors. People with this perspective believe that coworking space sustainability means flexible access
to the space, as well as the sharing of resources. The “Resourceful Society” believes that a sustainable
coworking space emphasizes sustainable and efficient energy use, whilst placing an importance on
social factors. The “Environmental” perspective shares the emphasis on energy, but is more narrowly
focused on environmental factors. For people with this perspective, reducing the carbon footprint
seems to be the highest priority. Lastly, the “Incubator” perspective emphasizes the community
within a coworking space. Here the view is that a collaborative community is absolutely key in
developing a sustainable coworking space. Thus, this research identifies four distinct perspectives that
are held within the coworking space industry. Whilst there are varying emphases on the sustainability
statements, all perspectives agree that it is important for a coworking space to be closely located to
public transport. Each perspective also believes that it is moderately important for the coworking
space to encourage members to be socially responsible. However, as each perspective has its own
opinion on the definition of sustainability, their common belief differs in interpretation. This once
again confirms the contribution of this research.
Altogether, this research offers insight into the various ways a coworking space may be sustainable.
The contribution of this research is key in order to understand the various meanings of sustainability in
the context of coworking spaces. This helps make the discussion about coworking space sustainability
less arbitrary and contributes to working toward a more holistic discussion of sustainability in
this context.
Limitations and Further Research
The major limitation of this research is the small sample size (27). However, whilst this sample
size is relatively small, it is still considered suitable for a Q-methodology study. From a statistical
standpoint the study fulfilled the criteria, but it is also important to mention the researcher’s subjective
importance in a study like this. Within a Q-methodology study, the researcher’s interpretation of the
data is key, creating a clear limitation, as human judgment is somewhat biased. This applies to all
Q-methodology studies, though, and is not a limitation of this particular study. Furthermore, as this
study is of an exploratory nature, its role is to gain familiarity with the subjective opinions about
coworking space sustainability. Lastly, it is important to consider that the sample selected had a bias
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 19 of 21
toward the importance of sustainability. A different sample may have yielded different results, yet the
sample was chosen in this manner to extract different subjective perspectives on what a sustainable
coworking space is. Altogether, the findings of this research are to be used with caution, and further
research is needed to explore them.
The findings of this research offer various research opportunities. Firstly, it would be valuable
to further research the four perspectives identified, to place them into context, and to move toward
assessing them in terms of sustainability. As these perspectives are of a subjective nature, it will be
important to move toward an objective sustainability assessment. Secondly, it would be useful to
further research various business models among coworking spaces and to place these in a sustainability
context. This could provide insights into sustainability aspects and be potentially expanded to the
sharing economy in general. Lastly, there is a clear need for an integrated sustainability framework in
the coworking space context. In the context of coworking spaces and the sharing economy, further
research would be valuable. This could help assess sustainability, as well as offer tools on how to make
businesses more sustainable.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, K.O. and X.Z.; data curation, K.O.; formal analysis, K.O.; investigation,
K.O.; methodology, K.O.; project administration, K.O. and X.Z.; supervision, X.Z.; visualization, K.O.;
writing—original draft, K.O.; writing—review & editing, K.O. and X.Z. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments:
We wish to thank all the participants of this study for their efforts. We would also like to
thank the editors and reviewers for their constructive feedback and help throughout.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Global Coworking Growth Study 2020|Market Size & Industry Trends. Available online: https://www.
coworkingresources.org/blog/key-figures-coworking-growth (accessed on 2 November 2020).
2.
Kodama, F. Learning Mode and Strategic Concept for the 4th Industrial Revolution. J. Open Innov. Technol.
Mark. Complex. 2018,4, 32. [CrossRef]
3.
Bouncken, R.B.; Reuschl, A.J. Coworking-spaces: How a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel
trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2018,12, 317–334. [CrossRef]
4.
Lee, M.; Yun, J.J.; Pyka, A.; Won, D.; Kodama, F.; Schiuma, G.; Park, H.; Jeon, J.; Park, K.; Jung, K.; et al.
How to Respond to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or the Second Information Technology Revolution?
Dynamic New Combinations between Technology, Market, and Society through Open Innovation. J. Open
Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018,4, 21. [CrossRef]
5.
Yun, Y.; Lee, M. Smart City 4.0 from the Perspective of Open Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark.
Complex. 2019,5, 92. [CrossRef]
6.
Yun, J.J.; Won, D.; Park, K. Dynamics from open innovation to evolutionary change. J. Open Innov. Technol.
Mark. Complex. 2016,2, 7. [CrossRef]
7.
Pyka, A.; Bogner, K.; Urmetzer, S. Productivity Slowdown, Exhausted Opportunities and the Power of
Human Ingenuity—Schumpeter Meets Georgescu-Roegen. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.
2019
,5, 39.
[CrossRef]
8.
Reed, B. Co-Working: The Ultimate in Teleworking Flexibility. Available online: https://www.networkworld.com/
article/2287504/co-working--the-ultimate-in-teleworking-flexibility.html (accessed on 2 November 2020).
9.
SY, K. Coworking Wiki/Coworking Manifesto (Global—For the World). Available online:
https://wiki.coworking.org/w/page/35382594/Coworking%20Manifesto%20%28global%20-%20for%
20the%20world%29 (accessed on 2 November 2020).
10.
Coworking Core Values 1 of 5: Sustainability|Alex Hillman. Available online: https://dangerouslyawesome.
com/2011/08/coworking-core-values-1-of-5-sustainability/(accessed on 2 November 2020).
11.
Seo, J.; Lysiankova, L.; Ock, Y.-S.; Chun, D. Priorities of Coworking Space Operation Based on Comparison
of the Hosts and Users’ Perspectives. Sustainability 2017,9, 1494. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 20 of 21
12.
Ivaldi, S.; Pais, I.; Scaratti, G. Coworking(s) in the plural: Coworking spaces and new ways of managing.
In The New Normal of Working Lives; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 219–241.
13.
Cooke, P. World Turned Upside Down: Entrepreneurial Decline, Its Reluctant Myths and Troubling Realities.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019,5, 22. [CrossRef]
14.
Yun, J.J. How do we conquer the growth limits of capitalism? Schumpeterian Dynamics of Open Innovation.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2015,1, 17. [CrossRef]
15.
Lejoux, P.; Flipo, A.; Ortar, N.; Ovtracht, N.; Souche-Lecorvec, S.; Stanica, R. Coworking, a Way to Achieve
Sustainable Mobility? Designing an Interdisciplinary Research Project. Sustainability
2019
,11, 7161.
[CrossRef]
16.
McKeown, B.; Thomas, D.B. Q Methodology; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013; Volume 66,
ISBN 1-4833-1188-0.
17. Brown, S.R. A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subj. 1993,16, 91–138.
18.
Durante, G.; Turvani, M. Coworking, the Sharing Economy, and the City: Which Role for the ‘Coworking
Entrepreneur’? Urban Sci. 2018,2, 83. [CrossRef]
19.
Cheah, S.; Ho, Y.-P. Coworking and Sustainable Business Model Innovation in Young Firms. Sustainability
2019,11, 2959. [CrossRef]
20.
Uda, T.; Abe, T. What contributes to community building and sustainability enhancement in coworking
spaces? Discuss. Pap. Ser. A 2018,329, 1–29.
21.
Nosratabadi, S.; Mosavi, A.; Shamshirband, S.; Kazimieras Zavadskas, E.; Rakotonirainy, A.; Chau, K.W.
Sustainable Business Models: A Review. Sustainability 2019,11, 1663. [CrossRef]
22.
Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable business model innovation: A review. J. Clean. Prod.
2018,198, 401–416. [CrossRef]
23.
Joyce, A.; Paquin, R.L. The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business
models. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,135, 1474–1486. [CrossRef]
24.
Bocken, N.M.P.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable
business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014,65, 42–56. [CrossRef]
25.
Bouncken, R.B.; Clauss, T.; Reuschl, A.J. Coworking-spaces in Asia: A business model design perspective.
In Proceedings of the SMS Special Conference Hong Kong 2016, Hong Kong, China, 10–12 December 2016.
26.
Kim, Y.; Lee, M. Typology and Unified Model of the Sharing Economy in Open Innovation Dynamics. J.
Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019,5, 102. [CrossRef]
27.
Acquier, A.; Carbone, V.; Mass
é
, D. How to create value(s) in the sharing economy: Business models,
scalability, and sustainability. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2019,9, 5–24. [CrossRef]
28.
Laukkanen, M.; Tura, N. The potential of sharing economy business models for sustainable value creation. J.
Clean. Prod. 2020,253, 120004. [CrossRef]
29.
Piscicelli, L.; Ludden, G.D.S.; Cooper, T. What makes a sustainable business model successful? An empirical
comparison of two peer-to-peer goods-sharing platforms. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,172, 4580–4591. [CrossRef]
30.
Botsman, R.; Rogers, R. What’s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption; Harper Business: New
York, NY, USA, 2010.
31.
Hamari, J.; Sjöklint, M.; Ukkonen, A. The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative
consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016,67, 2047–2059. [CrossRef]
32.
Yun, J.J.; Park, K.; Hahm, S.D.; Kim, D. Basic Income with High Open Innovation Dynamics: The Way to the
Entrepreneurial State. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019,5, 41. [CrossRef]
33.
Rasiah, R. Building Networks to Harness Innovation Synergies: Towards an Open Systems Approach to
Sustainable Development. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019,5, 70. [CrossRef]
34.
Martin, C.J. The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism?
Ecol. Econ. 2016,121, 149–159. [CrossRef]
35.
Frenken, K. Sustainability perspectives on the sharing economy. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.
2017
,23, 1–2.
[CrossRef]
36.
Frenken, K.; Schor, J. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. In A Research Agenda for Sustainable
Consumption Governance; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2019.
37.
Todeschini, B.V.; Cortimiglia, M.N.; Callegaro-de-Menezes, D.; Ghezzi, A. Innovative and sustainable
business models in the fashion industry: Entrepreneurial drivers, opportunities, and challenges. Bus. Horiz.
2017,60, 759–770. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020,12, 10547 21 of 21
38.
Curtis, S.K.; Lehner, M. Defining the Sharing Economy for Sustainability. Sustainability
2019
,11, 567.
[CrossRef]
39.
Geissinger, A.; Laurell, C.; Öberg, C.; Sandström, C. How sustainable is the sharing economy? On the
sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,206, 419–429. [CrossRef]
40.
Plewnia, F.; Guenther, E. Mapping the sharing economy for sustainability research. Manag. Decis.
2018
,
56, 570–583. [CrossRef]
41.
Daunorien
˙
e, A.; Drakšait
˙
e, A.; Snieška, V.; Valodkien
˙
e, G. Evaluating sustainability of sharing economy
business models. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015,213, 836–841. [CrossRef]
42.
Ramlo, S. Mixed method lessons learned from 80 years of Q methodology. J. Mix. Methods Res.
2016
,
10, 28–45. [CrossRef]
43.
Barry, J.; Proops, J. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecol. Econ.
1999
,28, 337–345.
[CrossRef]
44.
Zeemering, E.S. What does sustainability mean to city officials? Urban Aff. Rev.
2009
,45, 247–273. [CrossRef]
45.
Hermans, F.; Kok, K.; Beers, P.J.; Veldkamp, T. Assessing sustainability perspectives in rural innovation
projects using Q-methodology. Sociol. Rural. 2012,52, 70–91. [CrossRef]
46.
Van Exel, J.; de Graaf, G. Q Methodology: A Sneak Preview. 2005. Available online: http://sites.nd.edu/
lapseylab/files/2014/10/vanExel.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2020).
47.
Stenner, P.; Watts, S.; Worrell, M. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology; SAGE Publications
Ltd.: London, UK, 2020.
48.
Arrindell, W.A.; Van der Ende, J. An empirical test of the utility of the observations-to-variables ratio in
factor and components analysis. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1985,9, 165–178. [CrossRef]
49. VQMethodTM. Available online: https://www.vqmethod.com/Home (accessed on 12 November 2020).
50.
Schmolck, P. PQMethod Manual (Version 2.35). Mainframe-Program QMethod. 2014. Available online:
http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/pqmanual.htm (accessed on 12 November 2020).
51.
Akhtar-Danesh, N. A Comparison between Major Factor Extraction and Factor Rotation Techniques in
Q-Methodology. Open J. Appl. Sci. 2017,07, 147. [CrossRef]
52.
Zabala, A.; Sandbrook, C.; Mukherjee, N. When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives
in conservation research. Conserv. Biol. 2018,32, 1185–1194. [CrossRef]
53. Herrington, N.; Coogan, J. Q methodology: An overview. Res. Teach. Educ. 2011,1, 24–28.
54.
Watts, S.; Stenner, P. Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qual. Res. Psychol.
2005
,
2, 67–91. [CrossRef]
55.
Eghbalighazijahani, M.A.; Hine, J.; Kashyap, A. How to do a Better Q-Methodological Research: A Neural
Network Method for more Targeted Decision Making about the Factors Influencing Q-Study. In Proceedings
of the Irish Transport Research Network, Dublin, Ireland, 5–6 September, 2013.
56.
Qflag: Q Methodology: Automatic Flagging of Q-Sorts in Q Method: Analysis of Subjective Perspectives
Using Q Methodology. Available online: https://rdrr.io/cran/qmethod/man/qflag.html (accessed on
12 November 2020).
57.
Brown, M. Illuminating Patterns of Perception: An Overview of Q Methodology; Software Engineering Institute,
Carnegie-Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2004.
58.
Cohen, M. A rsystematic review of urban sustainability assessment literature. Sustainability
2017
,9, 2048.
[CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note:
MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
