“Which segments of end-users and decision-makers of commercial real estate may be defined based on their sustainability practices in the Netherlands?”

“Which segments of end-users and decision-makers of commercial real estate may be

defined based on their sustainability practices in the Netherlands?”

Master Facility & Real Estate Management

Title assignment : Dissertation master FREM Name module/course code : Academic Skills

Name Tutor : Dr. A. Eros

Name student : Tom Gunther

Full-time / Part-time : FT Greenwich student nr. : 001089625 Saxion student nr. : 486414 Academic year : 2019-2020 Date : 17-08-2020 Confidential : No

“Which segments of end-users and decision-makers of commercial real estate may be

defined based on their sustainability practices in the Netherlands?”

University of Applied Sciences Saxion Handelskade 75

7414 DH Deventer Greenwich University Old Royal Naval College

Park Row 30

SE10 9L S London, United Kingdom

I confirm that this assignment is my own work, is not copied from any other person’s work (published or unpublished) and has not previously been submitted for assessment either at Greenwich

University or University of Applied Sciences Saxion. I confirm that I have read and understood the Department and University student regulations, policies and procedures.

Tom Gunther August 17, 2020

Readers Tutor Dr. A. Eros

Saxion University of Applied Sciences 2nd _reader

S. Borghuis

Abstract

There is currently a major challenge in the Netherlands: offices larger than 100 square metres must all meet energy label C by 2023, and energy label A by 2050. Approximately 56% of offices in the Netherlands do not currently meet the energy label requirements, so there is still much to be gained in terms of sustainability (RVO, n.d.). However, it is unclear how end users and decision-makers can best be reached for a transition towards a more sustainable office. So, this research examines the mindset of end-users and decision-makers towards sustainability. This is based on segments. The results show that almost all respondents consider the sustainability performance of their offices to be important to very important. The main motives are the establishment of a healthy working environment for employees and cost savings. Most acceptable payback periods are between three to five years, followed by between six and seven years and ten or more years. This indicates that

respondents are willing to invest. Most respondents indicate that they pay attention, the most to the energy, health, waste and pollution. However, there are several restrictions such as too little budget and no clear investment plan that lead to not investing in sustainability.

The data was used to divide the respondents into eight segments. This approach was done by using three axes. First of all, the willingness to invest. Next, cost savings versus strategic value. Finally, respondents who actively search for information or not. From this, four potential segments have been identified that can be addressed to accelerate the transition towards sustainable offices. The four segments consist of segment 1 (willing, costs, active), segment 2 (willing, costs, passive), segment 7 (willing, strategic, active) and segment 8 (willing, strategic, passive). These segments are collectively responsible for approximately 11.3 million square metres office buildings. Segments 1 and 3 are actively seeking information and can be easily reached by using trade fairs, newsletters, newspapers, social media and the internet. However, segments 2 and 8 are not actively looking for social media and will have to be reached in a different way, although, this group can still be reached by using websites. Segment 1 is in personal life, most consciously concerned with sustainability, about 81%. Next comes segment 3 with 77%, segment 2 with 68% and segment 8 with 50%. This research found one significant relationship; end-users and decision-makers who find the sustainability performance of their office more important, are more willing to invest in sustainability on a 0.10 significance level. The other relationships tested were found insignificant.

Synopsis

Purpose: This study aims to define the segments of end-users of commercial real estate based on sustainability practices with the most significant potential for improving commercial real estate in the Netherlands.

Design/Methodology/Approach: This research contributes to the knowledge about the end-users of commercial real estate in the Netherlands. The focus is on making commercial real estate more sustainable. For this study, end-users are segmented based on the data. The most significant potential segments for making commercial real estate more sustainable is presented in this study. This potential groups are essential for the transition from traditional to more sustainable commercial real estate. This study also takes into account the influences of one’s personal life. This research is a quantitative study and the data is obtained via distributing a questionnaire. The research is based on academic literature, and further analysed through a questionnaire (based on a previous research, combined with new literature). Subsequently, end-users and decision-makers are personally addressed. The processed data from the questionnaire was used to answer the research question, including sub-questions, and hypotheses.

Findings: This research was performed based on eight segments. After the first data analyses were performed, four segments were further elaborated due to their potential; segment 1 (willing, costs, active), segment 2 (willing, costs, passive), segment 7 (willing, strategic, active) and segment 8 (willing, strategic, passive). These four potential segments represent 11,309,715 square metres. Originality/Value: This research was carried out by request from the facility and real estate

management (FREM) work field to repeat a previous study. Research is being conducted to identify the willingness of decision-makers to make commercial real estate more sustainable. The company Corporate Facility Partners (CFP) wants insights into the decision-making process of making

commercial real estate more sustainable and the corresponding personal influences on this. This insight should ensure an accelerated transition towards making commercial real estate more sustainable. The segmentations make it easier for CFP to focus on a target group that would like to make a transition towards sustainable commercial real estate. Also, this repeated research provides an updated perspective since the previous study was carried out six years ago.

Keywords: End-users, decision-makers, offices, segmentations, sustainability, built environment, sustainability (performance), sustainable living, personal influences, commercial real estate. Paper type: Master thesis

Foreword

This thesis concludes the Master Facility and Real Estate Management at Saxion University of Applied Sciences and the University of Greenwich. After obtaining my bachelor's degree in Built Environment at Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, I wanted to study further before I started working full-time. This Master fulfilled all my requirements and additionally many successful entrepreneurs in the real estate sector completed this study.

At the start of the Master, I was asked about my possible thesis subject. I believe that technology and sustainability are an essential emerging trend within real estate. That is why I knew I wanted to develop more knowledge by following this Master. During a guest lecture, the company Corporate Facility Partners (CFP) shared their knowledge, which persuaded me. CFP came up with an excellent combination of technology and making the built environment more sustainable. Through the guest lecture, I came into contact with Bram Adema, and this is how the subject of this thesis originated. The thesis is repeated research; however, several new trends have been added. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 had a major impact on this research. It became a lot more challenging to make physical agreements with the parties involved. As a result, mainly desk research took place and made the collection of responses more challenging. I want to thank CFP for their help during this research. I would also like to thank my entire network for helping me distribute the surveys, and especially those who completed them. Finally, I would thank most of all Adrienn Eros for her help throughout the whole trajectory. She provided insightful ideas and great feedback.

I declare that this research and thesis is my own work. Where other sources have been used, they have been referenced and acknowledged.

Tom Gunther

Table of content

Abstract ... 3

Synopsis ... 4

Foreword ... 5

1.Introduction ... 8

1.1 Background of the subject and of the problem statement ... 8

1.2 Research question and hypotheses ... 9

1.3 Research model ... 9

1.4 Contribution of the research to the field... 9

1.5 Scope of the research ... 10

1.6 Constraints and limitations of the research ... 10

1.7 Thesis structure ... 11

2. Literature research ... 12

2.1. The Built Environment... 12

2.1.1. Sustainability ... 12

2.1.2. Circularity ... 13

2.1.3. The Built Environment and its impact on the environment in the Netherlands ... 13

2.1.4 The impact of the buildings on the environment in the Netherlands ... 14

2.1.5. Measurement of Sustainability with Labels in the Netherlands ... 15

2.1.5.1. LEED... 15

2.1.5.2. BREEAM ... 16

2.2. End-users & decision-makers ... 16

2.2.1. Commercial real estate ... 16

2.2.2. Actors in the commercial real estate market ... 16

2.2.3. Purchase behaviour of end-users & decision-makers ... 17

2.2.3.4. Motives of end-users to improve the sustainability of their buildings ... 19

2.2.3.3 Information sources used by end-users ... 21

2.3. Conceptual model and operationalisation... 23

3. Research methodology ... 24

3.1 Objective of the research ... 24

3.2 Research question and sub-questions... 24

3.3 Hypotheses ... 25

3.4 Research strategy ... 26

3.5 Research design ... 26

3.5 Data collection & sampling ... 26

3.6 Validity ... 27

4.1 General results questionnaire ... 29

4.1.1 Respondents... 29

4.1.2 Square metres ... 29

4.1.3. Reasons for improving sustainability performance of the buildings ... 30

4.1.4. Payback period & investments areas ... 30

4.1.5. Search for information ... 31

4.1.6. Restrictions for sustainability... 31

4.1.7. Sustainability awareness in personal life ... 31

4.2 results per segment ... 32

4.2.1. Segmentation ... 33 4.2.1.1. Segment 1 ... 35 4.2.1.2. Segment 2 ... 35 4.2.1.3. Segment 7 ... 36 4.2.1.4. Segment 8 ... 37 4.3 Hypotheses ... 38 5 Conclusions ... 41 6 Discussion ... 43

7 Suggestions for further research ... 45

References ... 46

Appendix 1 Accompanying text Questionnaire... 50

Appendix 2 Accompanying text Personal message LinkedIn ... 50

Appendix 3 Questionnaire ... 51

Appendix 4 Explanation for segmentation ... 55

Appendix 5 Graphs ... 57

1.Introduction

This chapter describes the background information and the objective of this research. Next, the research question is described with the corresponding hypotheses. Then the research model and the contribution to the field of work are described. Further, the scope of the research, the constraints and limitations are mentioned. This chapter ends with the structure of this research.

1.1 Background of the subject and of the problem statement

The world is currently experiencing climate change, sea levels are rising and there are more extreme weather conditions. The earth is warming up, IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has determined that the global temperature may not rise the earth more than 1.5 degrees. Because of the climate change, measures have to be taken (KNMI, n.d.).

From 1 January 2023, offices in the Netherlands larger than 100 m2 must have an energy label C as a minimum. This equals an Energy Index of 1.3 or lower. If offices do not meet the requirements, the building may not be used anymore (Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland (RVO), n.d.). As a result of this measure, many companies will have to become more environmentally sustainable. Approximately 30% of the pollution comes from the real estate world, so a large part of the solution will be here as well. According to the RVO (2020), this lies in more sustainable construction, with an emerging trend in circularity. By 2050, the Dutch economy will be completely circular, there will be no waste and the economy will run on renewable raw materials. These measures came from the Dutch government and will, therefore, have to be complied. Those measurements mean that in the coming years’ companies with more than 100 m2 need a label C, in 2030. And, in 2050 they will have to use an emission-free building, which is a label A. There are still 56% of offices in the Netherlands without energy labels, which offers many opportunities for sustainability managers. At the moment, there is still a significant challenge to make the office market more sustainable. Many office portfolios need to be transformed into a sustainable portfolio.

The most important parties that can influence the sustainability performance of existing buildings are owners, end-users and decision-makers. The owner is in most cases, the investor, but can also be a developer or owner & user (Quispel and Langbroek, 2011). End-users come from sectors such as the residential or utility sector. This research will focus on the utility sector. Within the utility sector, end-users are from diverse organisations, such as the government, the care sector, the educational sector, freelancers, small- and medium enterprises, multinationals etcetera (CoreNet and FMN, 2013). Above combined, resulted into the following question: which and how can potential end-users & decision-makers be reached for a transition towards a sustainable office?

Consultancy companies in the Facility and Real Estate field offer their services to assist companies in improving the sustainability performance of their buildings. Solutions offered to reach improvements and savings (in terms of emissions, energy use, and money) concern both the fields of Facility and Real Estate management. Some solutions they offer may focus more on the softer, Facility Management (FM) side, like thermostats, LED lighting, circular coffee cups or ways of collecting waste while others on the Real Estate (RE) side focused on actual adoptions in the building, insulations, solar panels, or other actions requiring more significant changes in the buildings and so more substantial investments. The potential for improvements in terms of sustainability is significant, and many actors are involved in this process (based on their initiatives or legal requirements). It is essential for consultancy companies in the FREM field to have an overview of their market. This research aims to gain insight into this market by offering a market segmentation in order to reach and respond to this market. Segmentation is used to identify the groups most worth to pursue. Moreover, segmentation is used to guide organisations in tailoring their products and services to the segments that are receptive for a particular product and that are most likely to purchase them (Yankelovich and Meer, 2006).

1.2 Research question and hypotheses

As mentioned in the problem statement, according to the legislation, commercial real estate has to be more sustainable, in 2023 office buildings must have minimum energy label C. However, there is still a significant challenge because approximately 7400 offices have label D or lower, and besides approximately 35,000 offices do not yet have a label. The transition is mostly dependent on end-users and decision-makers. This leads to the central question of the thesis:

“Which segments of end-users and decision-makers of commercial real estate may be

defined based on their sustainability practices in the Netherlands?”

1.3 Research model

Figure 1: Research model (Author, 2020) (Based on the model of Wessels, 2014)

1.4 Contribution of the research to the field

Field of Facility and Real Estate Management

Corporate Facility Partners (CFP) asked to repeat an empirical study from Wessels (2014) about the mind-set of end-users towards more sustainable offices. This research originates from 2014, six years have passed, and sustainability is increasingly important in 2020. CFP would like to find out whether there have been any changes compared to 2014. During this research, end-users and makers are segmented in order to provide insight into the current mindset of end-users and decision-makers on a personal and business level to make their commercial real estate more sustainable. Also, the way of obtaining and looking for information about the sustainability process will be examined.

This research provides an insight about the mindset of end-users and decision-makers for making the Dutch office market more sustainable. In addition, this empirical research comes up with a

segmentation of end-users and decision-makers. The segmentation provides a potential focus group for an accelerated sustainability transition in the Dutch office market.

Scientific

This scientific research aims to increase knowledge about the sustainability process of office buildings. According to earlier research (Wessels, 2014), the mindset of end-users and decision-makers play a role in this process of making the built environment more sustainable. The business and personal mind-set is measured by surveying decision-makers and end-users, only those with influence on making offices more sustainable. The questionnaire is filled in by 97 respondents. This empirical research can be added to the scientific field. Also, this research is a repeat and may be repeated again later to see what changes are taking place in the field of sustainability. This research is not representative for the entire focus group of end-users and decision-makers of offices, because of the low response rate. This research provides a renewed or conformation picture of the type of end-users and decision-makers that need to be addressed for a sustainable transition in the offices.

1.5 Scope of the research

This research focuses on end-users and decision-makers responsible for offices in the Netherlands. It focuses on people who can make decisions to make the offices more sustainable. It also takes into account the extent of sustainability in the private lives of these decision-makers and end-users. Segmentation is applied to responsible decision-makers; this group is the most interesting because they can accelerate a sustainable transition. Besides, this research does not examine the sustainable processes of a company. The focus is to focus at the potential segmentation for accelerating the development in sustainable office buildings in the Netherlands.

1.6 Constraints and limitations of the research

During this research, there have been several limitations and constraints. This research assumes that decision-makers and end-users are responsible for making office buildings more sustainable.

However, there are still many different factors that encourage sustainability. Also, in this research no investigation of other factors that could lead to sustainability is conducted. Furthermore, is assumed that the legislation will remain unchanged and companies will comply with it. This research aims to investigate which segments have the most potential, by focusing on this group, the sustainability transition will be accelerated.

By using an anonymous questionnaire, there is a chance that people have not completed the survey honestly, but with socially desirable answers. Finally, the time limit and also the exceptional COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a unique four months, with also limited help from the work field. The COVID-19 crisis caused companies to first focus on their primary processes. This research has a small focus group, which made finding respondents even more difficult.

Hereby an overview, limitation of scope:

1. The study is limited to organisations operating in the Netherlands. They are all end-users of commercial real estate in the country (renting or owning offices, production utilities etc.) The scope does not contain individuals, only organisations. Respondents are representatives of these organisations.

2. The study does not concern all buildings in the Netherlands but is limited to commercial real estate. No residential buildings or other elements of the built environment (like roads, etc.) are part of this study.

Academic limitations:

definition of sustainability limited to environmental sustainability and even within that to aspects related directly to buildings.

At this moment, the world is under the influence of COVID-19, so, many respondents were not available to fill in the questionnaire because they had to focus on their primary process. Also, during the summer period a lot of potential respondents were on holiday, and not able to fill in the

questionnaire.

Finally, there is a time limit. The thesis had to be done in four months. This will decrease the reliability, with also a selected focus group, conclusions are made based on the obtained data.

1.7 Thesis structure

The thesis starts with a synopsis, preface and summary. In Chapter 1, the introduction of the thesis consisting of the goal, problem and contribution. Chapter 2 contains literature research on the circularity, sustainability, impact on the Built Environment and the motives & purchasing behaviour of end-users. Subsequently, chapter 3 provides the main question, sub-questions and hypotheses, research strategy, data collection and validity & reliability. Then, in chapter 4 the results of the questionnaire are highlighted and segmented, focusing on the most potential towards making offices more sustainable. Furthermore, in chapter 4, the hypotheses are either confirmed or invalidated based on the data obtained from the questionnaire. Chapter 5 concludes based on the previous chapters and answers the main question. Chapter 6 contains the discussion in which the results are compared with previous research of Wessels (2014) and where the restrictions of this thesis are discussed. Finally, suggestions will be provided for further research based on this thesis.

2. Literature research

This chapter provides an overview of the existing literature relevant for this thesis. It starts with theory about sustainability and circularity and the impact of these concepts on the Netherlands. The next part is related to the legalisation that currently apply in the Netherlands. Then the current commercial real estate is described and how its sustainability is measured. As a final part of the literature review, the chapter ends with the end-users, decision-makers and the willingness to make the property more sustainable or make use of circularity.

2.1. The Built Environment

This paragraph focuses on the impact of the built environment, including the trends of sustainability and circularity. The commercial real estate must be made more sustainable according to legislation. As mentioned before, end-users have a significant impact on this; this will be investigated during this research. The literature review provides an improvement of knowledge on all factors involved in the built environment.

2.1.1. Sustainability

The RMIT University (2017) has split sustainability in four factors. Sustainability is divided into human, social, economic and environmental sustainability. First, human sustainability puts the focus on everyone who is directly or indirectly involved in making products or providing service (Dunphy, Benn, & Griffiths, 2014). Second, sustainable development looks at social and economic development to protect the environment. It shows that the economy and society are mutually dependent on the ecological system (Diesendorf, 2000). Third, economic sustainability stands for a combination of natural capital and social capital. Economic sustainability represents the ecological system and the relationship between people. Due to the growth of the economy, there is a chance that the ecological and social capital will be damaged (Dunphy, Benn, & Griffiths, 2014). These first three factors are not relevant to the thesis; however, the following and last factor is important.

Fourth, environmental sustainability focus’ on achieving positive economic results without causing long-term or short-term damage to the environment. If companies want to make a positive contribution to this, they will have to keep the four factors (human, social, economic, environmental) in the back of their mind. These must be integrated and treated equally (Benveniste, Dunphy & Griffiths, 2000). In addition, the areas in which a building is tested to obtain a BREEAM certificate are; energy, management, health and well-being, transport, water consumption and efficiency, materials, waste, pollution and ecology (BREEAM, n.d.). The BREEAM factors are in line with environmental sustainability. Sustainability is currently a high priority within the Dutch government, society and stakeholders. This results into companies may invest in making office space more sustainable. This sustainability does not only concern the real estate portfolio; the entire business has to operate sustainable (Silvius, 2012).

The focus of this research is mainly on environmental sustainability. However, the sub-focus lies on human sustainability, in connection with the health & well-being of the end-users of the offices. This results in a combination of both factors.

2.1.2. Circularity

In line with sustainability, the following trend has emerged: circularity. According to Bao & Lu (2020) circularity in the construction sector will ensure the reuse of construction & demolition waste. This waste can be used as a renewable resource for the real estate sector. Also, Ghaffar et al. (2020), reports that focusing on waste recycling will provide new recycling models in the field of waste recycling. There is no clear definition within the literature of ‘circularity’ or ‘circular economy’. The following definition of Kircherr, Reike and Hekkert (2017), fits the most within this research; “the 'circular economy' is an economic system based on business models that replace the concept of end-of-life by the reduction, reuse and recovery of raw materials, equipment in production, distribution and consumption processes, working at different scales and with a view to sustainable development for present and future generations”.

The Dutch government has set objectives regarding circularity. The Netherlands must be fully circular by 2050. This should be achieved through the following purposes: more efficient use of raw materials when new raw materials are needed use of produced, re-usable raw materials and new production methods and circular designs. These objectives have an impact on the construction sector.

Approximately 50% of raw material consumption in the Netherlands is used for the construction industry. However, an enormous proportion of this consumption is demolition waste which is currently not being re-used. For creating a sustainable Netherlands, the construction industry must quickly make a transition towards innovation, such as circular and modular construction (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, 2019).

After 2018, new buildings must be energy neutral. Also, when real estate is redeveloped, or new construction is realised, re-usable, or recycled building materials should be used as much as possible (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, 2019). According to UKCG (2014), there is much

potential to solve future challenges. This means that resources will be used more efficiently. With the advent of the circular economy, there will be an abundant supply of recycled or re-usable building materials. This trend will establish a change in the construction sector, towards a circular real estate development (UKCG, 2014). The implementation of circularity does not mean that the return on real estate will decrease. According to Arub (2020), the application of the following five models (Flexible spaces, adaptable assets, relocatable buildings, residual value, performance management) ensures that the return on investment of real estate increases, as well as reducing emissions and the ecological footprint.

The Netherlands is currently working on making the construction sector more sustainable. The use of circular construction can provide a handle to accelerate towards the goals set by the Dutch government. Sustainability is heading more in the direction of the circular economy. This research will combine circularity and sustainable offices.

2.1.3. The Built Environment and its impact on the environment in the Netherlands

The impact of the built environment is essential for this research. The construction is responsible for about 30% of global emissions. Compared to other countries, the Netherlands has average emissions. The built environment within the Netherlands is responsible for approximately 30% of emission. The RICS report (2005) supports this, stated that buildings account for roughly 40% of the total

consumption of raw materials and energy. Subsequently, 55% of the wood, which is not used as fuel, is also consumed by the construction. This thesis will only focus on commercial real estate. There are about seven million houses and one million commercial buildings that are not insulated and heated by natural gas (Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat, 2019).

2.1.4 The impact of the buildings on the environment in the Netherlands

Approximately, 60 Megaton of greenhouse gases are currently produced by the built environment in 2020 (see Figure 1). Around 2030, the built environment should emit 49% megatons less C02 than in 1990 (Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat, 2019). Besides, it can be seen that the planned measures will reduce emissions per year (Rijksdienst voor ondernemend Nederland, n.d.).

Figure 2: Greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands (CBS, 2018)

According to the RVO (Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland, 2020), there are approximately 62,000 office buildings that must have label C in 2023. About 32% of these meet this requirement. 7,440 offices have label D or less. So, 34,720 of the offices do not yet have a registered label. As can be seen in figure 3, the number of registered energy labels is increasing through the years. This shows that many companies and offices have been working on sustainability in recent years (Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland, 2020).

After having considered the impact of buildings on emissions in the Netherlands and the emerging trend of circular construction, we further discuss the different layers of buildings. Stewart Brand (n.d.) has developed figure 4, which shows the length of time linked to the shell of a building. The six different layers are site, structure, skin, services, space plan, and stuff. A building consists of several layers, and this means that individual layers can be removed and placed back in place. As a result, the lifespan of a building can be extended considerably (Arub, 2020).

Figure 4: 6S building layers Brand’s (Mentioned in Arub, 2020)

2.1.5. Measurement of Sustainability with Labels in the Netherlands

This paragraph provides a brief explanation of the commonly used methods for measuring the sustainability of buildings. First, LEED is explained, and then BREEAM will be elaborated.

2.1.5.1. LEED

The private non-profit organization US Green Building Council (USGBC), has developed LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental). This is a rating system for the promotion of sustainable green building and development projects. The requirements for a LEED certificate are complex. They are calculated for indicators such as location selection, redevelopment of an old industrial estate, availability of bicycle storage and changing rooms and energy performance of the building. By obtaining the LEED certificate, the developer or owner of the building indicates that it is involved in the reduction of emissions (Eichholtz, Kok, & Quigley, 2010, p. 2504).

2.1.5.2. BREEAM

BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) (figure 4) is a tool to measure the sustainability of a building. The assessment indicators and their scale are shown in figure 5.After adding up the indicators based on weighting, a final score is obtained. This consists of unclassified, pass, good, very good, excellent and outstanding. Excellent is the highest possible score). This tool is currently widely used (DGBC, 2020).

Figure 5: BREEAM weightings (http://www.breeam.nl/ as mentioned in IVBN, 2009

The LEED and BREAAM are not used any further in this research, these labels were explained to broaden the knowledge about measuring sustainability.

2.2. End-users & decision-makers

This paragraph focuses on end-user & decision-makers. One of the purposes of the research is reaching end-users & decision-makers who want to become more sustainable. This group can then motivate others to come along.

2.2.1. Commercial real estate

In the Netherlands, real estate can be split into two groups, residential and commercial real estate. Commercial real estate consists of offices, shops and industry. The value the real estate also depends on the type of real estate (Nozeman et al., 2010). As mentioned earlier, this thesis will only focus on commercial real estate.

2.2.2. Actors in the commercial real estate market

As mentioned in Warren-Myers (2012), 'The circle of blame' (figure 6) describes that with sustainable buildings all parties involved feel that they have to contribute to improve the sustainable performance of their building. But on the other hand, all parties point to another party and do not take responsibility for the first step. Investors (owners) say they only invest in increasing the sustainability of the buildings if the end-users (occupiers, tenants) will pay higher rent. Tenants point at the construction industry saying they would be interested in more sustainable buildings, but there are not many available. Construction companies look to the developers, constructors build what the developers plan, while developers point to the investors, saying the specifications come from them (see figure 6.). To simplify this, investors only invest to the extent it pays off, and many tenants are reluctant to pay more.

With the regulation that buildings of 100 m2 or more must have energy label C in a few years, the responsibility is currently placed with the owner of the building by the central government of the Netherlands. Already in the '70s, it became clear that end-users were needed for innovation (von Hippel, von Hippel, & MIT. Press, 2005). Some measures to improve the sustainability performance of their buildings can be performed by the tenants themselves. However, for other actions, they need to cooperate with the owner of the building (which may result in paying higher rent, but lower energy cost).

End-users are the ones who profit most from the higher sustainability level of the building they occupy. The benefits range from lower energy cost to image benefits, better productivity and comfort to higher flexibility (Jensen, Sarasoja, van der Voordt & Coenen, 2013). For this study, the focus is on the end-users & decision-makers. End-end-users learn from others, and they take over the behaviour from other end-users (IBM, 2003).

Figure 6: The circle of blame (Warren-Myers, 2012)

2.2.3. Purchase behaviour of end-users & decision-makers

For this research, it is essential to obtain information about the purchasing behaviour of the end-users. The approach of a previous study conducted by Wessels (2014) will be followed to be able to compare findings to the findings from 2014. To understand the purchasing behaviour of end-users, they will be grouped according to specific characteristics, also they are segmented

For this research, segmentation happens on a business-to-business level, as end-users & decision-makers are defined as companies and organisations. Within organisations, two different categories are identified; macro- and micro-segmentation. Marco-segmentation focuses on sector analysis, an analysis of the sector in which they plot themselves. Micro-segmentation deals with the companies themselves.

During this research, the purchasing behaviour of end-users & decision-makers is investigated. This is based on macro-segmentation, three different axes concerning the companies themselves (Havaldar, 2010). The first axis looks at the financial side of the investment or 'willingness to invest'. The willingness to invest consists of the acceptance of the payback period based on a specific investment to be made (Havaldar, 2010). The second axis is derived from the micro-segmentation. This

determines whether the decision-makers consider the investment worthwhile or not. The difference is whether companies want to invest in cost-efficient products or like to buy high-quality products that deliver performance.

In summary, the company goes for cost-saving measures or makes a strategic choice (Havaldar, 2010). The advantage of a micro analysis lies in the careful filtering of financially weak companies; these companies need to save costs, so they may be approached to improve the sustainability of their buildings from the cost-saving perspective (Hutt & Speh, 2009). In addition, the procurement policy and purchasing criteria are examined. Based on that, one can judge which category a company belongs to (cost-saving or strategic choice for higher quality). The third axis focuses on providing

information. Are the companies actively looking for information on how their business or building

can be made more sustainable? This is related to the business strategy (Havaldar, 2010).

Finally, the personal characteristics of the end-users & decision-makers within the companies are used to anticipate further patterns regarding their purchase decisions. In the end, it is human decision-makers who decide within the framework of company strategy and purchasing-policies, therefore; it may add value to try to identify the actual influence of the individual decision-maker as well. The indicators used within the survey are risk appetite, education, age and personal motivation based on Havaldar (2010).

2.2.3.1. Willingness to Pay (WTP) for the Sustainability of Buildings

The first axis looks at the financial side of the investment or 'willingness to invest'. Willingness to Pay (WTP) can be defined as the amount a customer is prepared to pay for the acquisition of a good or service (Homburg et al. 2005). Measuring willingness to pay can be done in different ways, via observations or direct/indirect surveys, as shown in Figure 7 (Stoetzel, 1954). In this study, a direct survey method with customer surveys will be employed. In terms of investment, the improvement of the sustainability performance of real estate, is the willingness to pay mostly determined in terms of ,the most prolonged acceptable payback period for the investment. Assumed that investments mostly result in cost savings for the end-users. Besides, according to a sustainability report by Colliers (2019), several other factors influence WTP. Most investors choose to make the WTP more

sustainable during regular maintenance. Also, most investors do not have an ambitious plan to make their office portfolios more sustainable. Various parties indicated during Colliers their research that they were willing to ignore the energy label C requirement and expected to be able to find sufficient parties for their office portfolios. However, in this study, willingness to pay will be measured by payback period. And not by price, a buyer is willing to give for acquiring a specific product.

2.2.3.2. Cost saving versus strategic value

This section considers the cost savings compared to strategic value. According to Eichholtz et al. (2020), a sustainable building gives a greener image to the user of the building. It provides a signal that the company is aware of corporate social responsibility, specifically concerning sustainability. This enables the company to create a green reputation and image. Besides, the use of a sustainable building also provides a more productive working environment, which can lead to less absenteeism due to illness. This results into indirect cost savings, and can be seen as an investment. Research shows that limited sectors consider sustainability as more important than optimizing profits; these are mainly governments and non-profit organizations. Previous choices are based on a company's strategy. Also, companies are required by law to use an office building with label C from 2023 (RVO, n.d.).

Making the office more sustainable reduces energy, and thus the costs of the energy. According to Colliers (2019), investments in sustainability are not charged through higher rents. Besides, at the moment, it is mainly the users of the property who benefit from an investment, as they receive a lower energy bill in return.

For many tenants, it is essential that the buildings are sustainable. So, after owners invest in sustainability improvement, agreement will made about service costs, that will increase for the tenant and therefore the investor has a faster payback period (Funda in Business, n.d.). For companies, it is a combination of legalisation and sustainability that must ensure that the office building used is legally sustainable by 2023.

2.2.3.3. Information

A survey conducted by Deloitte (2012) among 20 companies in the Netherlands found: four reasons discourage companies from investing in the sustainability of their office: complex organizational structure, little information available on the performance of the office, little information available on how to make the office building more sustainable and how to ventilate it more sustainably within the organization. Besides, a study by Nuon (2012) shows that little information is known about the legislation and the financial impact of sustainability. Hulshoff (2009) linked the entire picture to the previously discussed figure 5. 'circle of blame' (Warren-Myers, 2012). During this research, a questionnaire examines whether end-users and decision-makers are actively looking for information and where this information is obtained. Without the right information, it is more difficult for end-users & decision-makers to become more sustainable.

2.2.3.4. Motives of end-users to improve the sustainability of their buildings

End-users may have various motives to improve the sustainability performance of their buildings. These motives may be divided into external and internal motivations, as discussed below. External motives

According to Jensen et al., (2013) and Lindholm (2006), “green added value” ensures a motivated end-user for more productivity and revenue growth. Employees feel the pressure to perform and get external motivation out of it. Besides, in recent years many companies are focused on their

sustainable image, which includes environmental, economic and social aspects (Lein, 2018). Companies look to the future with a specific vision, which includes any government regulations. (government regulations 2023,2030 and 2050) and ensure that their corporate social responsibility is in line with this, which means that the end-users have to go along with it.

Internal motives

The Ramboll report (2019) indicates that users of a sustainable building have a healthy working environment. This is due to the ability to optimize the indoor climate and the materials used. The improvements are air quality, daylight, thermal, acoustic, views and availability of facilities.

Besides, sustainable development reduces fixed costs and increases the value of the property, but investments must first be made to achieve this return. This also has its value for the end-users, it supports its potential demand for sustainability, satisfaction increases and flexibility (Jensen et al., 2013).

Figure 8: Stakeholder perceptions that effect the value of green buildings (WBGC, 2013)

Figure 8 (WBGC, 2013) provides a visual representation of the motivations for sustainability. This figure clearly shows that there are four main motivations: image, employee-related improvements, cost-related improvements and sustainability in general. Also, there is a link to CSR and legislation.

Figure 9: comparing motivations (Author, 2020)

As stated at Jensen et al., (2013) and WBCG (2013)(figure 9), the focus of the end-user is on a healthy working environment and in doing so, the end-user can make a productive contribution to the business process.

In conclusion, the motivations for end-users & decision-makers to improve the sustainability

performance of their building may cost-saving or strategic advantages, increased productivity, image benefits and health & well-being of the employees. These motives are used during the questionnaire.

2.2.3.3 Information sources used by end-users

During this literature review, it emerges that obtaining information is an important pillar for end-users & decision-makers to increase the willingness for sustainability. It is essential to determine whether the end-users are prepared to become more sustainable.

2.2.3.4. Personal motives and choices of the decision-makers

For this research, it is essential to obtain information about the reasons for making offices more sustainable from end-users & decision-makers. According the article “Steeds meer consumenten bereid extra te betalen voor duurzame producten of diensten” (2018), is 46% of all Dutch people willing to pay extra for sustainable products. The motivations of private life may influence business choices. When influential decision-makers focus on sustainability in their private life, likely, this will also inspire business. According to Velmans (2009), consciousness has three different references. First, self-consciousness, what you as a person contribute to the world. Secondly, a state of wakefulness. Thirdly, when someone becomes aware of a specific subject, they have also acquired knowledge about it. However, education may emerge unconsciously, consciousness about

sustainability does not have to provide insight, to making people’s personal lives more sustainable. For this research, we look at the awareness of end-users in the field of sustainability in personal life. For this purpose, the questions of the study of Gericke et al. (2018) used. These questions focus on the education of sustainable development, reducing natural resources for health and wellbeing, circularity, waste separation and waste reduction and the associated adaptations to ensure a sustainable lifestyle.

2.3. Conceptual model and operationalisation

3. Research methodology

The research objective is to determine which end-users & decision-makers can be best approached to establish a more sustainable built environment in the Netherlands. It will gain insight into the background of choices of end-users and decision-makers make for improving the sustainability performance of their buildings. At this moment companies are working on sustainability, but it is important to know which end-users & decision-makers can best be approached to make the offices more sustainable quickly.

3.1 Objective of the research

This research aims to gain insight, into the sustainable behaviour of end-users and decision-makers in the office market in the Netherlands. This goal is achieved by conducting empirical research among end-users and decision-makers in the office market in the Netherlands. By gaining insight, a potential focus group can be identified; this group can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable office market in the Netherlands. Also, solutions can be found to problems that end-users and decision-makers are now experiencing towards making office buildings more sustainable. Companies such as CFP, for example, can adjust their strategy accordingly and approach the focus group. The additional goal of this research is to add knowledge about the personal life of end-users and decision-makers. It investigates whether there is a link between the choices made in business life and private life.

3.2 Research question and sub-questions

The research question in this thesis is:

Which segments of end-users and decision-makers of commercial real estate may be defined based on their sustainability practices in the Netherlands?

This question will be answered using the following sub-questions:

1. To what extent are end-users and decision-makers of commercial real estate willing to invest in improving the sustainability performance of their buildings?

2. What are the most important motives of end-users and decision-makers of commercial real estate to improve the sustainability performance of their buildings in the Netherlands? 2.1. To what extent does compliance motivate end-users and decision-makers of commercial

real estate to improve the sustainability performance of their buildings in the Netherlands? 2.2. To what extent do potential cost savings motivate end-users and decision-makers to

improve the sustainability performance of their buildings in the Netherlands commercial real estate?

2.3. To what extent do strategic reasons motivate end-users and decision-makers of commercial real estate to improve the sustainability performance of their buildings in the Netherlands? 3. What is the role of the information provision in the purchase behaviour of the end-users and

decision-makers of commercial real estate in the Netherlands?

3.1. Which representatives of the end-users and decision-makers are involved in the decision- making concerning the sustainability performance of their buildings?

3.2. To what extent are end-users and decision-makers of buildings actively looking for information concerning the improvement of the sustainability performance of their buildings?

3.3. Which kind of media do end-users and decision-makers of commercial real estate in the Netherlands use?

4. What is the influence of the personal sustainable behaviour of the end-users and decision-makers of commercial real estate on their choices to improve the sustainability performance of their buildings in the Netherlands?

3.3 Hypotheses

This research has developed new hypotheses, which are based on Wessels' research together with the current literature review and new insights. Therefore, the hypotheses are not exactly the same as the hypotheses of Wessels (2014). This is also because of COVID-19 and the lack of time. The subjects will be the same, except for the addition of the factor ‘personal life’. This hypothesis is related to the influence of sustainability in the private life of the end-users and decision-makers on the decisions for their office buildings. The focus will be no longer on the segments, but on the total group of respondents.

The following hypotheses are developed based on the data obtained from the questionnaires: H1: End-users and decision-makers responsible for larger office buildings find the sustainability performance of their buildings more important.

This hypothesis is tested by using question one, comparing the number of square metres per respondent with question two (five-point Likert scale) the importance of the sustainability performance of the office buildings.

H2: End-users and decision-makers responsible for larger office buildings are more willing to invest in the sustainability performance of their buildings.

This hypothesis is tested by using question one, comparing the number of square metres per respondent against question six (no equal intervals) the acceptable payback period for investing in a sustainable office building.

H3: End-users and decision-makers that find the sustainable performance of their buildings more important are more willing to invest in sustainability.

This hypothesis is tested by using question two, comparing the importance of the sustainability performance against question six (no equal intervals) the acceptable payback period for investing in sustainability.

H4:The willingness to invest in sustainability differs between sectors end-users and decision-makers operate in.

This hypothesis is tested by using question six (no equal intervals), comparing the acceptable payback period for investing in sustainability with question 15, the different sectors in which companies operate.

H5: End-users and decision-makers who are more informed about sustainability are more likely to invest in the sustainability performance of their buildings.

This hypothesis is tested by using question 12, 13 and 14 to compare with question six, the acceptable payback period for investing in a sustainable office building.

H6: End-users and decision-makers who are more self-aware about sustainability in personal life finds the sustainability performance of their buildings more important.

This hypothesis is tested by summing the scores (1 or 0) from question 18 to 22 (score zero to five) on the influence of sustainability on personal life and by comparing them with question two, the importance of the sustainability performance of the office buildings.

3.4 Research strategy

During this research, a deductive approach is used, which means a top-down approach. It starts with the theory, then a hypothesis, then observation and analysis, concluding with a confirmation or rejection of the hypothesis (Scribbr, 2020). This research is repetition and renewal of Wessels' research (2014). Wessels’ research is based on explorative approach, which provided insight into the thinking of end-users and decision-makers concerning making buildings more sustainable. At that time, the subject ‘sustainability’ was still emerging in the Netherlands and an explorative approach was necessary to obtain insights. This provided an insight into the problems and possible solutions (Robson, 2002).

This research is a quantitative study. The basis of this research is the literature and the foundation of the research of Wessels (2014). Quantitative data allows to analyse information in a standardised form, enabling making general conclusions (Saunders et al., 2009). The trend ‘circularity’ will be added as an innovative element. Also, the influence of the pro-environmental behaviour of individual decision-makers is added to the scope of the study. These new elements will be included in the existing segments mentioned in paragraph 4.2. This will be answered by an entirely new set of five questions that give results about the self-awareness of sustainability in personal life and the impact on their decisions relating sustainability of office buildings.

3.5 Research design

This research is based on the survey research design. Surveys aim to gain insights by asking standardised questions from a large group of respondents with the objective of drawing general conclusions. This design is suitable for this project as the objective is to come to conclusions on all end-users and decision-makers of commercial real estate in the Netherlands, so the target group of the study covers thousands of organisations. These technique have been applied in the previous research (Wessels, 2014). A questionnaire is a widely used way of researching the field of

motivations and choices regarding circularity and sustainability in the built environment. The cross-sectional study took place during a specific period and time. Namely during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey took place in a shorter period than the previous study. Besides, this is not a longitudinal study, which means that the study took place over a long time (Saunders et., 2009). The cross-sectional study aims to form a segment of end-users and decision-makers in which people at business and personal level want to create a rapid transition towards a sustainable environment.

3.5 Data collection & sampling

Data is collected by using an online questionnaire; this method is suited for surveys to obtain a large sample size. By using digital questionnaires and the network of business professionals, a broad audience can be reached. According to Saunders et al. (2009), a questionnaire can consist of

qualitative (open) and quantitative (closed) questions. Respondents will answer questions like these: who', 'what', 'where', 'how much' and open questions (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). The questionnaire is digitally distributed via 'Qualtrics'. The questionnaire of Wessels (2014) is used as a basis. Additionally, certain elements will be added.

The questionnaire consists of multiple-choice questions and open questions. The open questions are used to find out the number of square metres, names of conferences, fairs, newspapers and

magazines of the respondents. The quantitative questions have a limited number of answers allowing the researcher to better compare answers. Several questions use the 3&5-point Likert scales. The questionnaire is conducted online, and the respondents are forced to answer all questions. No questions can be skipped. Due to the new legislation in the Netherlands, the questionnaire must be completed anonymously. In addition, this can cause socially desirable answers, while, for example, in reality this person does not focus on sustainability.

Before the questionnaire went public, it was discussed with CFP, tested on 15 people and again discussed with CFP. After the first round of testing, some questions were taken out of the survey, others were adjusted. To keep the survey as attractive as possible, the introduction text was kept short and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) measures were identified. The

questionnaire was distributed via LinkedIn and e-mail. Subsequently, approximately 300 people were personally contacted via LinkedIn, which, is expected to increase the response rate. Further, some decision-makers and end-users, did not want to fill in the questionnaire, despite anonymity. Also, some did not indicate how many square metres they were responsible for and answered with 0 or none. An earlier study showed that 331 respondents filled in the questionnaire, with 7866 potential respondents being approached (Wessels, 2014).

During this research, the focus is on persons with responsibility of offices and the ability to invest in sustainability. The population of the research is end-users and decision-makers (organisations). The persons to answer the question on behalf of these organisations are decision-makers of these end-users and decision-makers, so employees working with real estate, facility management, purchasing, tendering, contracting, related to sustainability. These persons are called end-users and decision-makers in this study.

The COVID-19 pandemic made everyone focus on their primary process, and the summer holidays reduced the response rate. The network of CFP and FMN was used. The message was shared through their network. Approximately 16% of the total number of personal LinkedIn messages confirmed that the survey had been completed.

The results are coded and analysed using the statistics software SPSS (Saunders et al., 2009). The online tool ‘Qualtrics’ enables transformation of the data immediately to SPSS; this ensures that data does not have to be entered manually. To process the data, descriptive and frequency analysis will be performed. This makes it possible to answer all sub-questions. After this, a multivariate analysis will be used to identify patterns and distribute the respondents into segments based on axis 1, 2 and 3 (Scribbr,2020).

3.6 Validity

Validity means that the research findings are correct, and the research is free of systematic mistakes (Saunders et al., 2009). Validity can be divided in construct-, internal- and external validity.

Construct validity ensures that the measurement instrument (questionnaire) measures what it

intends to measure (Saunders et al., 2009). The questionnaire of this research is: 1. based on a validated scale

2. Based on the previously performed research by Wessels (2014)

3. checked and elaborated further based on the review of existing literature.

4. tested via a pilot survey sent to 15 test-respondents and evaluated with company in the work field

5. checked with companies in the work field (CFP)

Internal validity means that the conclusions drawn from the sample are representative for the

sample (Saunders et al., 2009). Internal validity is a primary concern for qualitative studies as they do not aim at generalisation. For quantitative studies aiming at drawing conclusions for the whole population, like this one, external validity is more relevant. Internal validity may be improved by triangulation, using multiple methods of data generation (with a focus on disconfirming evidence). This method does not apply to the present study, because it is a repeated research. It only uses one approach; a survey. Another option may be member validation, checking conclusions with

This means checking conclusions with other researchers and experts. The findings will be checked with CFP, a leading company from the work field (consultant in green buildings).

Further, respondents can give socially desirable answers during the questionnaire, by filling in the questionnaire anonymously, the chance is reduced, as the respondent's data cannot be traced. In addition, the influence of COVID-19 will be discussed in the discussion; the influence of the pandemic causes companies to focus on primary processes and not on investing in sustainability. Further, only end-users and decision-makers who have the responsibility and authority to invest in their office have been written. This method ensures that a specific group has been addressed compared to the previous study. Also, it is a public link, and only end-users could fill in the questionnaire.

External validity is a primary concern for quantitative studies, aiming to generalise the obtained data

from the sample over the entire focus group (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2015). The ability to generalise findings depends mostly on the composition of the sample, which is difficult to control with a non-probability based, convenience sample. This is a significant risk for the external validity of the study; Due to the COVID-19 situation, there is limited access to respondents and therefore an accepted risk, which is taken into account in evaluating the results.

A way to reduce this risk is to compare findings to previous, similar studies. This will be accomplished in the present thesis as findings are compared to the findings of Wessels (2014).

3.7 Reliability

Reliability means that the findings are stable. When repeating the study, one would get similar results and random errors are minimised (Saunders et al., 2009). The reliability of the study depends to a great extent on the quality of the measurement instrument (questionnaire), the questions were easy to interpret, contains unambiguous questions and easy to understand answer options. Also, a large part of the questions of Wessels has been re-used; this is a repetitive research which may lead to higher reliability. Furthermore, a Pilot study is accomplished to make sure the questionnaire is of good quality. This is done by sending a test questionnaire to 15 different people. The questionnaire is completed by these people and they provided feedback when questions were unclear.

Data is imported from Qualtrics directly to SPSS, which ensures there are no mistakes in entering the data manually into SPSS.

The sampling technique applied in the study also plays a significant role in the reliability of the thesis. Probability-based samples are superior to non-probability-based samples, but, in the current

research it was not possible to use a probability-based sampling approach which decreases the reliability of the study. The sample size is a significant concern for the reliability of this study as well. Usually, as to be able to generalise, a large sample size is preferred, with a higher response rate. Due to the COVID-19 situation, the expected response rate is lower than usual, and it is more challenging to approach a large sample of potential respondents. To increase reliability, the surveys under three minutes were deleted. It took an average of about 15 minutes per respondent to complete the survey, which shows that respondents took the time to fill it in.

4 Results

This chapter provides the results of the processed data from the questionnaire distributed within the researcher's and CFP's network. The first paragraph gives a general picture of the results. Next, the results per segment are described and the data about the self-awareness of sustainability in private life. Finally, the outcomes of testing the hypotheses is provided. Appendix five contains the figures, which are elaborated in paragraph 4.1 and 4.2. Appendix six contains the figures based on testing the hypotheses in SPSS, which is discussed in paragraph 4.3.

4.1 General results questionnaire

For the perception of this study, general results of the questionnaire will be discussed in this paragraph.

4.1.1 Respondents

The survey was distributed via the researcher's network and CFP. This equals about 8000 possible end-users & decision-makers. In the accompanying text, it is indicated that only decision-makers are the target group of this survey. This creates a more selective target group, 97 respondents filled out the survey.

The questionnaire was largely completed by facility & property managers with a percentage of 35%. The 'other' group is represented by 33%. The 'other' group consisted of advisers (35%), sustainability managers (11%), asset managers (40%) and building managers (14%). Furthermore, directors

represented 21% of the respondents. Finally, financial managers are represented with 5% and general managers and purchasing managers with both 3%. The greatest part of the respondents has responsibility for several square metres of offices in the Netherlands. They have influence in making the office more sustainable. Approximately half of the subgroup ‘advisers’, were not decision makers, but were included in the results for the reason that they stated that they have indirect influence.

Of the respondents, 46% are employed in the business services sector. Then the 'other' group is represented by 25%. This group consists mainly of investors. Furthermore, the government is involved with 12% of the respondents. Other sectors that were represented are: industry with 8%, education with 5%, healthcare with 3% and retail with 1%.

4.1.2 Square metres

Based on the survey, respondents are responsible for 120.113 square metres on average. All respondents together are responsible for 11,650,945 square metres. This high average is due to the fact that three respondents are responsible for more than a million square metres of offices. Without these three respondents, the average is about 70,000 square metres per respondent.

Some respondents indicated that they did not want to report the number of square metres of their office portfolio. Also, advisors mentioned that they are not directly responsible for square metres, but do try to influence the sustainability of square metres through their advice. However, during this research, their square meter responsibility has been set to 0 square meter. That causes 11

respondents to have 0 square meter of responsibility during this research.

According to Vastgoedmarkt (2020), there are currently 78,640,000 square metres of offices in the Netherlands. This survey would represent approximately 15% of this market.

4.1.3. Reasons for improving sustainability performance of the buildings

During the survey, respondents were asked how important the sustainability performance of their office is. To measure this, a five-point Likert scale was used. This resulted in the following, 43% indicates that sustainability performance is important for an office; furthermore, 47% suggests that it is very important. Finally, 10% reported that sustainability performance is not important or

important for their office.

In addition, they were also asked about the motives for sustainability (figure 12, Appendix 5). There were five fields (innovation, improvement of image, cost savings, competitiveness and healthy environment) to choose from, on which a score of important, neutral and not important had to be given via the three-point Likert scale. Respondents indicated that it was important for them to improve the performance of their office, including the satisfaction and health of their employees (27%). Savings costs are 24%. And improving image is 23%. Finally, innovation (14%) and

competitiveness (12%). Equally, when looking at the results of non-important motives, this confirms that competitiveness (58%) is not essential.

It became clear from the literature that there are several important motives for making offices more sustainable. During the survey, respondents had to weigh up cost savings against competition, against image and against innovation. If the respondents choose for cost savings twice or more, the respondent will be placed in the cost saving segment; if it goes for cost saving less than twice, it will be placed in the strategic segment. This resulted in the following (figure 13/14/15, Appendix 5): Cost savings versus improvement of the competitiveness = 76% versus 24%

Cost savings versus improvement of image = 55% versus 45% Cost savings versus innovation = 67% versus 33%

As can be seen, cost savings is currently the most crucial motive. Subsequently, image and innovation are important motives too. In this research these motives are summarized as ‘strategical’.

4.1.4. Payback period & investments areas

During the survey, the desired payback period for an investment in sustainability is asked (figure 16, Appendix 5). And, in which areas already been invested in 2019 & 2020. A group of 41% found a ‘3-5 year’ payback period acceptable. Subsequently, 20% of the respondents found ‘6-7 year’ an

acceptable payback period. Another 20 % is willing to invest in sustainability with a payback period of ten years or more. The group of respondents who find ten year or more an acceptable payback period contain for 48% people working for the government.

Another question was related to the importance of different areas to invest in (figure 17, Appendix 5). For each different area the respondent must choose between important, neutral or not

important. The most important areas for respondents are energy (82%), health (62%), waste (53%) and pollution (49%). In addition, this is supported, by the following elements indicated as not important have a low percentage; energy (1%), health (6%), waste (5%) and pollution (5%).

Furthermore, the questionnaire asked at which areas have already been invested in by end users & decision-makers. This showed that in 2019 (figure 18, Appendix 5), the focus was on investing in energy, health, waste and materials. In 2020 (figure 19, Appendix 5) investments were made in the same areas based on the same distribution.