Introduction

Coworking spaces (CWSs) embody novel concepts of the new workplace and meet the need for flexible but professionally equipped workplaces. They offer an alternative to working from home or commuting long distances to work and have emerged rapidly in the past decade (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte & Isaac, 2016; Waters-Lynch & Potts, 2017).

Even though CWSs emerged and are mainly attributed to urban areas (Waters-Lynch & Potts, 2017), we observe a shift towards establishing CWSs in rural areas. This trend relates to the “work from anywhere” (Choudhury, 2020) approach. Large corporations such as Siemens, Facebook, and Twitter have adopted and promoted this practice in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Choudhury, 2020). Additionally, people are increasingly moving from cities to rural areas since the pandemic, as exemplary data from the USA and Germany show (Dähner et al., 2019; Merten, 2020; Rose, 2020). The often unique environmental settings in remote and rural areas provide opportunities for diversification of service offerings compared to their urban counterparts, including, for instance, recreational activities. Furthermore, CWSs in rural areas can revitalize rural communities, particularly when set up in vacancies (Engstler & Mörgenthaler, 2018).

However, little is known about their implementation, including structural composition, economic feasibility, and profitability (Fuzi, 2015). It is uncertain whether franchise-based, one-size-fits-all business models of CWSs in urban settings can and should be applied unaltered to rural CWSs (Bähr et al., 2020). Their environmental and demographic circumstances, including rurality, seclusion, or identity-creating character (Voll et al., 2021), are far more diverse and individual than urban CWSs (Bähr et al., 2020). In addition, it takes more than mere emergence and existence of CWSs in peripheral areas to utilize the existing potential and achieve goals such as reviving vacancies (Voll et al., 2021). Lastly, existing rural CWSs tend to be microenterprises created and operated by highly motivated but relatively inexperienced entrepreneurs with few resources available for trial ventures (Bähr et al., 2020). Providing specific guidance on how to configure business models of rural CWSs can help entrepreneurs to build sustainable businesses together with local communities. Therefore, we strive to answer the following research question: What elements constitute business models of coworking spaces in rural areas?

We conduct a literature review on CWSs and qualitative expert interviews with operators of rural CWSs in Germany to develop a taxonomy. We draw on proven design ideas from business model research and apply them to the specific case of rural CWS. The resulting taxonomy describes the characteristics of business models for rural CWSs we identify. We test and evaluate its usability through a case study of a planned CWS in a rural community in Germany.

Our results guide founders and policymakers on how to facilitate the opening and successful implementation or restructuring of rural CWSs. We also intend to motivate managers of CWSs and other enterprises to consider entering this promising entrepreneurial sector. Moreover, we contribute to research on CWSs by providing an analytical perspective on and possible manifestations of rural CWS business models. More successful rural CWSs would contribute to sustainability by reusing resources and strengthening rural regions. Therefore, this study’s contribution has economic and societal relevance.

Research methods

Literature review

CWSs are a promising and novel entrepreneurial phenomenon (Seo et al., 2017). Since it is an emerging topic, there is little and heterogeneous research literature on CWSs in general and CWS in rural areas (Josef, 2017; Seo et al., 2017). Given the inconsistent use of the term CWS and the multitude of different perspectives taken, we conducted a comprehensive literature review to clarify and organize the subject.Footnote 1 Overall, we found a strong focus on empirical studies on CWSs compared to a smaller number of conceptional publications. There also is a surplus of literature concerned with CWSs in urban areas as opposed to rural CWSs.

From the literature review on CWSs both in urban and rural contexts, we identified a lack of rigorous and comprehensive classification. Although some taxonomies of rural CWSs exist (BMEL, 2021; Bähr et al., 2020; Voll et al., 2021), their dimensions are either not clearly defined or too complex to enable comparability. Two approaches exist to create a structural categorization, differing in their development methodology. A “typology is conceptional while a taxonomy is empirical” (Bailey, 1994, p. 6). Based on the heterogeneous nature of the research field of CWS and the limited availability of conceptual knowledge on rural CWSs, we decided to develop a taxonomy following Nickerson et al. (2013).

Taxonomy generation: qualitative interviews

The purpose of this taxonomy is the general distinction between CWSs in rural areas from an economic point of view. Therefore, we chose business models as a meta-characteristic, “serv[ing] as the basis for the choice of characteristics in the taxonomy” (Nickerson et al., 2013, p. 343). We selected the Business Model Canvas (BMC) by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) to ensure comparability and generality. The BMC is recognized by both theorists and practitioners, especially in management and entrepreneurship (Salwin et al., 2022). It has a clear structure and captures an entire business model in nine components. Key Partners, Key Activities, Key Resources, and Cost Structure are efficiency-focused. Customer Relationships, Channels, Customer Segments, and Revenue Streams are value-centered. They all group around the Value Propositions component (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010).

We conducted qualitative interviews to develop and elaborate the taxonomy. We held eleven of the overall 16 interviews from the end of November 2020 to the beginning of March 2021. We used the geographical positioning in a rural municipality as a criterion for the interviewee selection. The official definition of spatial classification by the German Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs, and Spatial Development served as our reference. CWSs in towns with over 20,000 inhabitants were excluded. We interviewed operators of CWSs in rural areas of Germany (CWS1 to CWS11) and utilized the outcomes for the taxonomy design. They were set up as expert interviews, as the operators belong to the taxonomy's aspired user and recipients group. We conducted semi-structured interviews and adjusted the pool of questions as new insights emerged during the process. An overview of the most pertinent questions is included in Appendix B.1.

After the interview conduction and transcription, we applied qualitative content analysis to extract and prepare relevant interview data to elaborate the proposed taxonomy. We thereby created an information base that exists detached from the original texts (Gläser & Laudel, 2010, p. 200) by transferring statements from the interviews into a previously created search grid. The structure of the standardized search grid we developed and applied can be found in Appendix B.2.

From the qualitative interviews, we followed an empirical-to-conceptional approach (Nickerson et al., 2013) to choose the characteristics and dimensions of the taxonomy, using the BMC structure and its triple-layered extension presented by Joyce and Paquin (2016). This model includes elements that exceed a company’s traditional value creation process reflected in the conventional BMC by adding two layers. One is dedicated to disaggregating the business model regarding social aspects, whereas the other itemizes its environmental impacts.

The initial taxonomy resulting from this first iteration included 18 dimensions and between two and seven manifestations in each dimension, capturing the heterogeneity of business models in CWS in rural areas. In the next step, we evaluated and refined the taxonomy.

Taxonomy evaluation: case study and expert interview

We applied a case study as an empirical evaluation method to prove the usability of the taxonomy in a practical manner. Consequently, we used our taxonomy to create a business model for a CWS in a real-life rural environment. The selected site is located outside an agglomeration, and it classifies as a rural municipality due to its population of less than 5,000 (as of 2019).

The case study consists of multiple sources of evidence, namely documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant observation, and physical artifacts (Yin, 2018, pp. 126–127). We conducted six interviews (KR1 to KR6), listed in Appendix B.3.

Contrary to the interviews with operators of rural CWSs, we used no widely standardized interview guideline questions. Instead, we compiled an individual set of questions before conducting each interview, which addressed relevant topics for the respective interviewee. Lastly, we obtained direct observations at an on-site visit to the premises of the chosen location.

In addition to the case study, we evaluated the taxonomy with an entrepreneurial operator of a rural CWS who had been in the planning phase at the time of the interview. We sent out the taxonomy before the interview for the entrepreneur to apply it themselves. This interview further underlined that the taxonomy developed is helpful for practitioners because it presents the various options for business model design in a structured and concrete way.

Results

Coworking spaces from an entrepreneurial perspective

A CWS’s general offering can be best summarized as an office-as-a-service or described as an “’ on-demand office facility” (Blagoev et al., 2019, p. 895). CWSs often provide a more comprehensive range of services, such as regularly organizing events and workshops, coaching, mentoring, or handling administrative tasks for users (Bouncken et al., 2020b). A CWS is further characterized by a lack of direct goal-monitoring or task management by other employees or supervisors (Bouncken et al., 2020a, b, c). This gives the user autonomy and comes alongside the reduction or absence of organizational hierarchy (Bouncken, Kraus, et al., 2020a, b, c). Instead, community and mutual trust are built between autonomous users, replacing hierarchical structures (Bouncken & Reuschl, 2018). Typical customers of CWSs are “freelancers, new start-ups and graduates” (Bednár & Danko, 2020, p. 114) and seem to benefit from these characteristics (Bouncken & Reuschl, 2018; Bouncken et al., 2018; Bouncken et al., 2020a, b, c; Fuzi, 2015).

Rather than focusing on how CWSs enable entrepreneurship, we will assess them as entrepreneurial entities. “Entrepreneurs [generally] depend on business opportunities to seek value-creation” (Hummels & Argyrou, 2021, p. 4). The rapid emergence of CWSs in recent years showcases plenty of opportunities for this form of entrepreneurship.

Typologies of coworking spaces

“The growth of coworking spaces has led to the[ir] diversification” (Kraus et al., 2022, p. 8), encouraging researchers to classify and organize different forms and variants. Various researchers have developed categorizations of CWSs, a selection of which is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 General Typologies of Coworking Spaces and their Distinguishing Features
Full size table

We identified three rough distinguishing features for the typologies described in the papers. First, most authors use the (anticipated) type of added value of the CWS to categorize models. Second, some employ the kind of operator (governance) as a distinguishing feature, and third, the openness to different user groups. However, the typologies reviewed exist independently and are not related to each other beyond these broad distinctions. Our examination thus primarily points to various influences determining a CWS business model.

Most of the studies refer to CWSs in urban contexts. The underlying observation is that “Coworking spaces are often set up in central, exposed, and attractive locations, matching an attractive interior to the external urban space” (Bouncken, Kraus, & Martínez-Pérez, 2020a, b, c, p. 1467). Though this is true, there has recently been a notable trend toward CWSs in more rural areas (Bouncken, Kraus, & Martínez-Pérez, 2020a, b, c, p. 1476). The recognized potential of CWSs in rural areas mainly drives this trend shift. However, little is known about the particularities of rural CWSs and their business models.

Introducing rural coworking spaces

We found limited typologies specific to rural CWSs or CWSs in rural and peripheral locations (Voll et al., 2021). We present these in Table 2, as the distinguishing features found are far more diverse and incomparable with those derived from the typologies presented in Table 1.

Table 2 Typologies of rural Coworking Spaces and their Distinguishing Features
Full size table

The variety suggests a greater diversification of CWSs in rural than urban areas (Bähr et al., 2020). It complicates the comparison of the different typologies – both with one another and with those observed for urban CWSs.

The large number of categories, the hybrid forms, and the resulting unclear boundaries between the identified types raise the question of whether defining general (arch)types for CWSs in rural areas is beneficial or whether we can circumvent that without a loss of meaningful contribution.

Particularities of rural coworking spaces

Furthermore, the question arises as to what circumstances cause the diversity of CWSs in rural areas. The first explanation is the environmental variety in rural areas which differs from urban regions (Ferreira et al., 2015). Urban areas display uniform features, such as a high population density and a vivid entrepreneurial scene (Cabral & Van Winden, 2020; Nakano et al., 2020). In contrast, rural areas influence the BM of a CWS more strongly due to their identity-forming character and surrounding features (Voll et al., 2021), such as a forest or a waterside. This explains the variety of entrepreneurial activities outside agglomerations (Roundy, 2019) and the diverse clientele observed in rural CWS establishments (Bähr et al., 2020). It also suggests the importance of taking advantage of these unique environmental factors. As entrepreneurship and research on entrepreneurship concern efforts to understand how to discover, exploit, and create entrepreneurial opportunities (Hummels & Argyrou, 2021), we focus on this aspect.

The utilization of available features and resources also aligns with research on frugality and sustainability or green entrepreneurship that is presently being given considerable attention (Gregori & Holzmann, 2020; le Loarne et al., 2022). The primary goals of frugal entrepreneurship are fulfilling a greater good for society and contributing to sustainability through its offerings (Hossain & Sarkar, 2021). “[H]istoric sacred places match well with coworking” (Wright, 2018, p. 57), as they often inherit features from their previous usage that “meet the needs of coworking spaces such as having access to transit, being near amenities and housing, and consisting of a variety of interior spaces” (Wright, 2018, p. 57). If remaining vacant, these buildings often have to be demolished (Dähner et al., 2019).

Countering vacancies in rural communities through CWSs can ensure sustainable reuse and revitalization of entire town centers (Engstler & Mörgenthaler, 2018, p. 23). In addition, integrating rural CWSs into the premises of the administration of municipalities can bring people and further ideas for innovation and digitalization into rural regions (Prochazka & Wingartz, 2019). Rural CWSs can also become connection points to more urban areas and provide opportunities for urban–rural collaboration (Avdikos & Merkel, 2020). Moreover, as the services provided by CWS in more remote and less populated areas are typically more pluralistic (Marchegiani & Arcese, 2018), they may also function as social infrastructures (Avdikos & Merkel, 2020). In summary, CWSs can be “very much seen as bringers of new opportunities for rural areas” (Mediteranean, 2018). Because of that, CWSs may also benefit from market and community-based strategies supported by community members of small towns and rural areas to promote entrepreneurship (Roundy, 2019).

Elaboration of the taxonomy of business models of coworking spaces in rural areas

We selected the BMC as an underlying structure to choose the taxonomies’ characteristic and extended it with the triple-layered BMC by Joyce and Paquin (2016). To illustrate our taxonomy and integrate all components in an aggregated structure, we adopted the form of a morphological box (Table 3).

The different manifestations of the characteristics are not mutually exclusive, contrary to the general taxonomy definition (Nickerson et al., 2013) and the typical application of a morphological box. Implementing and including different manifestations within a type (e.g., Value Proposition Type) and combining them in a business model seems advantageous. This was evident from all interviews conducted, even in cases focusing on specific features.

The following section explains the individual segments of our taxonomy. They represent the main findings of this study. We exclude the cost structure component of the BMC from the overall presentation due to its uniqueness and only describe it briefly. Setting up the cost structure after applying the presented taxonomy to fit best, including all environmental factors, is recommended.

Table 3 Taxonomy for Business Models of Rural Coworking Spaces
Full size table

Customer segments of rural coworking spaces

We identified various characteristics dividing the clients of rural CWSs into different segments. For example, organizational affiliation, motivation, and time commitment to the CWS serve as distinguishing criteria. For Organization-Dependent Long- and Medium-Term customers, the rural CWS either complements or replaces the permanent workplace in the long and medium term. The clients from this customer segment are either individual customers or companies. Organization-Dependent Short-Term customers are also affiliated with a company or institution. They are working groups or boards of directors that purchase the offerings of the rural CWS for specific events, such as seminars, workshops, or meetings.

Independent Business-Related Need Long and Medium-Term customers are self-employed and micro-enterprises that permanently or partially locate their workplace in the rural CWS. Independent Business-Related Need Short-Term customers are not businesses with a fixed location but independent service providers who carry out their work activities in the rural CWS. Personal Preference customers visit or use the rural CWS for individual and non-business reasons. This customer type includes students, doctoral candidates, workationists, or event visitors.

Value propositions of rural coworking spaces

We identified three overarching value proposition categories for rural CWSs. These offer a spatial platform, an office-as-a-service, or an inspiring workplace. Each subdivides into two to three subcategories. An Exchange Facilitation Platform is realized by providing spaces specifically designed for (social) exchange, sometimes accompanied by community management and organization and the holding of events. In (Re-)Presentation Platforms, different clients can present and introduce their projects, products, or services to a self-defined or more coincidentally emerging audience in the rural CWS.

Workplace-as-a-service refers to offering individual workstations in freely selectable or permanently assigned desks on a large free area. The equipment at the desks and in the space may differ from case to case. Fixed Office Spaces are office rooms that function as individual offices, team rooms, or shared offices. This can also include virtual offices, which include providing a business address and accepting and forwarding mail or packages. Workation or Co-Living typically consist of offers for holiday establishments combined with those associated with providing a workplace. This includes, in particular overnight accommodation, leisure activities, or the provision of meals.

The installation of plants or the focus on an appealing interior design and furnishings are implementations to support creating an inspiring working environment. A quality standard or a specific corporate image can add to the Space Design. The value proposition External Environment is particularly realized when the CWS is located in a natural environment, e.g., near a lake, the sea, a forest, or a remarkably tranquil place in a village or small town.

Channels of rural coworking spaces

Individualized Self-Owned channels are predominantly applied to raise awareness and marketing, as they allow for direct peer-to-peer communication. In addition, the individualization of conveyed information via telephone calls, face-to-face communication, or personal emails and messages makes their usage highly effective.With Standardized Self-Owned channels, the generation of messages or emails becomes automated, and services are booked directly via the website. As a result, reliable and straightforward booking software can be crucial, particularly when offering overnight stays or operating at a fairly remote location with a geographically distant customer base. Standardized Partner-Owned channels depend mainly on the key partners of the respective rural CWS business model implementation. Possibilities include the presence on web-based nationwide platforms for rural CWSs, display in other rural and urban CWSs, marketing channels of the respective community, business or educational institutions, local newspapers, radio, and TV stations.

Customer relationships of rural coworking spaces

The customer relationships we observed in rural CWSs cover a wide range, from more traditional separated provider-recipient models to deeply entangled professional and social relationships. This depends on the selection and use of channels and the offered services and governance in place.

A Tenancy primarily occurs in the context of long-time office leasing. A Service Relationship refers to customers using the premises as a workplace, meeting location, or accommodation for a limited time. A Membership offers the customer various options, such as access to events, information, or multiple rural CWSs in an existing network. A software-based implementation enables booking different specifications of offered value propositions.

The Community customer relationship is difficult to measure or grasp. It emerges from personal contacts and business and is increasingly encouraged by numerous companies. When the governance is realized as a cooperative (as a form of company), customers take on the role of shareholders of the rural CWS. Users then might operate the rural CWS themselves, resulting in Co-Operation. In the case of Co-Creation, customers do not run the CWS but become a crucial part of the creation and (further) development of new value.

Revenue streams of rural coworking spaces

We categorize two defining aspects of revenue streams: the revenue model and the pricing mechanism. Possible revenue models include Renting, which represents the sale of the exclusive right to use (parts of) the rural CWS for a specific time. Subscription Plans enable continuous access to a service, and Pay-as-you-go entails the sale of time-limited usage quotas. As for pricing, it depends on access to different service levels in Feature-Based pricing, pre-determined prices for various services in Fixed pricing, or individual cases in the case of Negotiation.

Key resources of rural coworking spaces

We established an overarching three-part categorization into external circumstances (site factors), internal features (functional infrastructure), and human-related resources (social resources). The Premises in which the CWS is allocated and its structure largely determine the form of the other business model components. For rural CWSs, the Venue and its location are also crucial resources and can be advantageous in two respects. It is either located close to nature and thus of touristic importance or logistically advantageous – for locals or more remote users. The functional Internal Infrastructure, such as secure and robust internet connectivity, is also essential, as it can compete with or exceed the locally prevailing standard. The interior can also reflect the business model by integrating upcycled pieces to convey a focus on sustainability.

The user Community generally contributes to the offered and proposed value propositions and is particularly vital in the context of the described customer relationship, co-operation, and co-creation. A Network includes (local) connections and the know-how that emerges from or is only accessible through an exchange.

Key activities of rural coworking spaces

Marketing and Awareness-Raising typically involve activities for new and not yet established ventures and thus also occur in rural CWSs. They are additionally continuously integrated into the business concept through the organization of events open to the public and the overall feeding of the channels. Onboarding and Networking include the establishment and maintenance of key partnerships. The specific activity characteristics of this type might differ considerably. Examples include onboarding other rural CWSs to integrate into the business model or networking with companies in the nearest larger cities to establish collaborative relationships. Coworking Management is a set of activities concerning the internal operations of the rural CWS. It involves the maintenance of the space and the various implemented customer relationships.

Key partnerships of rural coworking spaces

Strategic Alliances are beneficial partnerships with non-competitors. They are, for instance, formed with the respective municipalities, exemplarily for marketing purposes. Coopetition arises between competitors and, thus, between different companies from the same sector. However, the extent of cooperation and mutual support seems characteristic of rural CWSs. One example is a national cooperative for rural coworking spaces, of which most interviewees were members. Fusion goes beyond cooperation and represents the closest relationship between rural CWSs observed. It entails integrating other CWSs into the own business model and thus merging with potential competitors.

Governance of rural coworking spaces

We included the following three components from the social stakeholder layer of the triple layered BMC. We describe Governance in two parts: the Corporate Form and Activity Prioritization. Most corporate forms we found within rural CWSs are relatively simple, which can be explained by their small size and rather early stages of development. We observed Sole Proprietorships, Limited Liability Companies, and a singular occurrence of a more complex Entrepreneurial Company and a Cooperative.

Activity Prioritization refers to the operation and governance of each CWS business model. More than half of the interviewees stated that its operation is their Secondary occupation. Though, mostly the respective Main career is related to the CWS in some form.

Involvement of local communities in rural coworking spaces

Municipalities can be involved as political entities or impact rural CWSs as geographical units. In both cases, CWSs often pose substantial benefits, exemplarily by using vacancies and revitalizing immediate surroundings. Additionally, the CWS might indirectly serve the municipality’s development as a business location. However, from our interviews, we have found the participation of the political institutions within the municipalities has been minimal so far. (Local) Companies benefit, for example, from providing premises for periodic use or – in the case of gastronomy – by providing daily catering for the CWSs. The Local Residents, not part of the user group, profit from and contribute to the integration of local communities. CWSs enable this by providing a meeting place for all residents or creating a central point for club leaders, clubs, and engaged people.

Scale of outreach of rural coworking spaces

The observed types of the scale of outreach are Close (rural) Surroundings, exemplarily represented by the commuters, which typically have their residency in the immediate surrounding areas of the rural CWS, Intermediate Distance, and Wide Distance.

Cost structure of rural coworking spaces

From the interviews, we discovered the individuality of cost distribution. We identified some recurrent categories: Rent, Personnel Costs, Booking and Accounting Software, Infrastructure, and Additional Costs. The most significant difference in costs relates to whether there are employees in the rural CWS. If this is the case, personnel costs make up the largest share of the costs, otherwise, it is the rent. All other cost distributions depend on different business model components and their realization.

Evaluation of the taxonomy

As described in "Taxonomy evaluation: case study and expert interview" section, we conducted a case study using our taxonomy in the concrete context of a historic building in a real municipality. The proposed selection of implementations is based on selected sources, location factors, and information concerning the different dimensions of the taxonomy. This instantiation of a rural CWS business model based on the morphological box is presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Exemplary Business Model Composition Proposal for a Rural Coworking Space
Full size table

We successfully evaluated our taxonomy through this application to a specified environmental context. We demonstrated its validity, which “means that the artifact works and does what it is meant to do” (Gregor & Hevner, 2013, p. 351), and its utility. We show the latter by applying the taxonomy in a different environment from the business models of the considered CWSs, thus showing that “the achievement of goals has value outside of the development environment” (Gregor & Hevner, 2013, p. 351).

Discussion

Introducing rural coworking spaces: A new form of sustainable entrepreneurship

By providing a taxonomy of CWSs in rural areas, the paper contributes to the nascent research body. In particular, we seek to bridge the gap between the numerous diverse but in-depth papers, primarily based on urban CWSs, and the few and often more superficial papers on rural CWSs.

The operation of a CWS is, above all, a form of entrepreneurship (Bouncken et al., 2020a, b, c). From this point of view, we connect rural CWSs – a promising emerging form of sustainable entrepreneurship – to business model literature. We also introduce it to management and entrepreneurship research, as their operation requires inter alia profound management skills (Walden, 2019).

We aim to simplify the comparison of different typologies of rural CWSs – both among themselves and those observed for urban CWSs. To do so, we offer a structured approach and comprehensive but clearly defined taxonomy. Entrepreneurship is context-specific (Ferreira et al., 2015), and the proposed taxonomy affords more nuanced distinguishments in hybrid CWSs observed notably in rural areas. This allows for the specific naming, analysis, and comparison of business models of CWSs across different settings.

Practical implications for rural coworking spaces

In contrast to urban environments, rural areas are characterized by their immediate surroundings, e.g., their closeness to nature and tranquillity. These specific conditions allow for a greater diversity of CWS business models. The presented taxonomy systematizes and highlights the various opportunities associated with the rural context. By evaluating our taxonomy, we have substantiated its usefulness for practitioners.

These are founders and managers, regional and national policymakers, and various user groups, including employees and entrepreneurs. It enables entrepreneurs to plan and implement their business model so that the environment and resources found in the specific context are utilized, integrated, and exploited in the best possible way. The primary consideration here is using existing resources – for example, vacancies, whose potential can be optimally exploited. For part-time entrepreneurs running rural CWSs, it can be a helpful tool to transition to full-time entrepreneurship. Policymakers can profit from representing the many concrete scenarios to reason for funding or putting supportive policies in place regionally. The taxonomy and its underlying suggestions can also motivate and inspire to update legislation in favor of this form of entrepreneurship. As such, it promotes and encourages spreading this form of means-driven frugal, and sustainable entrepreneurship.

Limitations

Naturally, several limitations constrain the validity and generalizability of the results presented. Firstly, we have a limited number of interview partners based in Germany. Secondly, we only considered and included the operators’ perspective in the taxonomy’s design through the expert interviews. However, this is justified because these are the probable recipients of the taxonomy for business models of CWSs in rural areas. Nonetheless, getting a more pluralistic view, exemplarily by including international sources, will be interesting. Moreover, the presented analysis is based exclusively on qualitative data collection, limiting the elaborated findings’ generalizability.

Conclusion and future research

The primary result of this study is the taxonomy for business models of CWSs in rural areas, represented in the structure of a morphological box. The taxonomy presents different possible forms of all parts of a business model, according to Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) in a rural context, facilitating the creation of new business models and their implementation in practice. We demonstrated and evaluated its utility through a case study and expert interviews. In addition to the structured overview, the study’s main findings are that rural CWSs are complex entities that can take on various forms and are characterized by pronounced individuality.

Based on our findings, it would be an interesting goal to find out whether, despite the intentional individuality, archetypes or variants of rural CWS business models exist that are more successful or sustainable than others. Furthermore, an extension of the number of CWSs considered is advisable to examine the validity and completeness of the taxonomy presented. Expanding the investigations geographically and span countries and possibly continents will be sensible. This can lead to land- or region-specific archetypes or cross-country findings. The use of quantitative data is also desirable, as this study is based exclusively on qualitative data collection.

Another promising development we briefly mention in our study is organized networking among CWSs in rural areas. For a start, we identified two trends: cross-company networking, primarily via organizations such as the Germany-wide cooperative CoWorkLand, and company-internal networking through integrating several rural CWSs into an overarching umbrella brand. Furthermore, we observed a movement towards intensifying these bonds, exemplarily through the anticipated formation of (virtual) cross-CWS platforms, e.g., including a joint booking platform. Therefore, future research would undoubtedly be interesting to examine this aspect, especially in the entrepreneurial context.