Coworking spaces as solidarity hubs: learning to mobilize and support each other at work

Coworking is the practice of sharing a common workspace – a coworking space (CS) – with other workers (Spinuzzi, 2012; Parrino, 2015; Gandini and Cossu, 2021). Over time, CSs have steadily expanded, often framed as a response to the domestication of work, isolation and work–family balance challenges (Parrino, 2015; Bacevice and Spreitzer, 2022; Danko et al., 2024).

Although coworking emerged in the early 2000s with the promise of fostering community building, empowerment and solidarity among remote and non-standard workers, research on its impact remains mixed. While many studies highlight its potential to promote a work culture grounded in collaboration and a sense of community (Kinsman et al., 2024; Spinuzzi et al., 2019), others argue these outcomes are difficult to achieve (De Peuter et al., 2017; Butcher, 2018; Bouncken et al., 2024).

This paper contributes to the debate by analyzing the coworking phenomenon through the theoretical lens of work solidarity – an approach still quite rare in coworking literature (Ivaldi et al., 2021).

The concept of work solidarity has recently regained attention within organizational studies (Scholz, 2015; Eschweiler et al., 2019; Fleischmann et al., 2022; Herranz, 2024). In light of the growing prevalence of individualism and hyper-competition in the world of work, the question of how a new work ethos – informed by solidarity values – can be fostered has become increasingly relevant (Scholz, 2015). Solidarity is increasingly understood as an umbrella concept that encompasses multiple dimensions: a social level, involving mutual support among workers; a civic level, aimed at including and assisting “others in need”; and a political level, focused on collective struggles and the advocacy for rights (Scholz, 2015). Given that CSs seemingly embrace such ambitious values, analyzing them through the lens of solidarity is especially pertinent. This perspective, in fact, allows us to explore the distinctive features of coworking experiences and to identify the specific conditions under which work solidarity may unfold in these contexts. We argue that this approach will also enhance scholars’ capacity to distinguish the impact and the degree of innovativeness associated with coworking practices.

In this paper, we focus specifically on a type of CS known as resilient coworking spaces (RCSs) (Gandini and Cossu, 2021), which are explicitly designed to empower vulnerable workers and revitalize peripheral areas through social initiatives and civic engagement. Because of their mission and organizational model, these spaces appear – at least in principle – more aligned with the original value proposition of coworking, and thus more likely to foster forms of work solidarity.

The contribution of this paper will be twofold:

1. to propose a theoretical framework on the theme of work solidarity applied to the context of coworking, with specific regard to RCSs; and

2. to delve deeper through multiple case studies into the approaches to solidarity that emerge in RCSs, and to explore which organizational practices and related challenges are involved in the creation of such solidarity-based work experiences.

The paper is organized as follows. First, a theoretical framework on the topic of RCS and the concept of solidarity will be proposed. Then, the research will be presented. Its results, relating to the forms of solidarity, the organizational mechanisms and the challenges observed in the analyzed contexts, will be discussed. The paper ends up with some reflections on the opportunities and limitations that the experience of RCS can offer today in relation to the process of developing work solidarity communities.

Today, coworking represents an increasingly widespread practice of sharing common workspaces (Deskmag Global Coworking Survey, 2023). Since their inception, CSs have positioned themselves as a response to individualistic and hyper-competitive work models (De Peuter et al., 2017), with a strong focus on connecting isolated workers, offering opportunities for mutual learning and solidarity and supporting the well-being of non-standard and remote workers.

Research over the years has indeed shown that CSs can promote the well-being and work-life balance of coworkers (Orel, 2019; Orel and Bennis, 2021), foster a sense of community (Butcher, 2018), support empowerment (Bouncken et al., 2024) and enhance mental health (Kinsman et al., 2024).

At the same time, as coworking has expanded, its offerings have become increasingly diversified and not always innovative (Ivaldi et al., 2020). A number of critical voices have questioned the ability of most CSs to offer a genuine alternative to the hyper-competition, self-exploitation and insecurity that characterize contemporary work (Bandinelli, 2020; Wright et al., 2022; Bouncken et al., 2024). These studies suggest that while many CSs may promote certain forms of well-being and mutuality, they often fail to bring about deeper cultural or relational transformations. On the contrary, most of them appear to have absorbed these dominant values, turning into places where coworkers are encouraged to engage in self-promotion and pushed further toward competitiveness and individualism, rather than finding solidarity or community (Jakonen et al., 2017; Waters-Lynch and Duff, 2019).

In response to this critical debate, Gandini and Cossu (2021) have distinguished between different forms of coworking, emphasizing that only some – namely, the so-called RCSs – are truly capable of fulfilling the original promise of resisting the neoliberal work ethic and generating collaborative communities. RCSs are typically managed by associations or cooperatives that repurpose unused public buildings, often in suburban areas, as part of broader efforts to revitalize local territories (Gandini and Cossu, 2021). These spaces frequently collaborate with local municipalities through social initiatives and involve schools, citizens, charities and other non-profit organizations in the area. Coworkers are engaged in activities such as tackling workplace inequality or supporting local entrepreneurship as a means of mutual empowerment and local regeneration.

Although studies on RCSs remain limited, they highlight the potential of these spaces to foster practices of care, mutual support and political engagement (Fotaki et al., 2019; Spinuzzi et al., 2019) – practices that resonate more closely with the original spirit of coworking. However, scholars also stress that such spaces are still rare and often face significant challenges in securing sustained political and economic support over time (Spinuzzi et al., 2019; Ivaldi et al., 2020). We therefore argue that a deeper investigation of this specific coworking model – its distinctive features, organizational dynamics and challenges – is both timely and necessary.

We further argue that this type of coworking should be examined through a more nuanced and fine-grained theoretical framework: that of work solidarity. This perspective differs from those most commonly adopted in the coworking literature – which typically focus on concepts such as collaboration (Spinuzzi, 2012), learning or resource sharing (Parrino, 2015). We contend that these existing frameworks are insufficient to fully capture the innovative potential of (at least some) CSs today – particularly with regard to their capacity to reimagine work and its underlying values and to foster new forms of community life.

For this reason, the following section introduces the concept of work solidarity and highlights its distinctiveness as an interpretive lens that can complement and expand current understandings of RCSs.

Work solidarity has traditionally been associated with labor unions, and scholars across disciplines agree on its progressive decline (Morgan and Pulignano, 2020; Sitrin, 2016; Hemmings, 2012; Daskalaki and Kokkinidis, 2017). Nevertheless, the framework of work solidarity has recently attracted renewed interest within the scientific community, particularly in relation to the rise of non-standard employment and flexible workplace arrangements. These shifts have introduced new needs for solidarity, as workers increasingly face challenges such as lack of social protection and support, isolation and job insecurity (Fleischmann et al., 2022; Herranz, 2024).

The concept of solidarity appears multifaceted, particularly when applied to workplace contexts (Morgan and Pulignano, 2020; Rakopoulos, 2016). In this paper, we have chosen to adopt Sholz’s (2015) definition of solidarity as one of the authors who describes it as “multiple” and composed of at least three interrelated components: social solidarity, civic solidarity and political solidarity.

Social solidarity refers to a sense of responsibility for a group to which workers recognize similarity, reciprocity and common needs (Cladis, 2005). Within social solidarity, the concept of “groupness” plays a pivotal role, as greater dependence and mutual help among workers fosters stronger solidarity. Civic solidarity aims to strengthen the unity of civil society as an organized form of mutual duties to promote the welfare of its members, identified as a civil community. Civic solidarity manifests itself as workers’ organized commitment to protect themselves and others in need, through initiatives that can also extend beyond the boundaries of the in-group. Workers can therefore engage in voluntary activities as active citizens, driven by a commitment to helping needy members of society or the local community (Cabot, 2016). Finally, political solidarity is expressed as a collective response to injustice, implying both social critique and a proposition for change. This type of solidarity is distinguished by the presence of collective mobilization against a common enemy and its oppositional character toward a system deemed discriminatory against minoritized groups (Courpasson et al., 2017). These three forms differ in how actors and recipients of solidarity are seen. Social and civic solidarity view them as members of shared communities, while political solidarity prioritizes individuals and their commitment to broader political causes. Social solidarity mainly benefits individuals, whereas civic and political solidarity aim for wider social change by challenging existing inequalities.

In coworking, experiences of collaboration, knowledge sharing, networking and social support – widespread and cross-cutting – can be seen as expressions of social solidarity (Ivaldi et al., 2021). Conversely, civic and political solidarity remain less visible and underexplored in current research. However, as Gandini and Cossu (2021) suggest, these forms should be distinctive features of RCSs. Building on this, we argue that further research is needed to understand the organizational mechanisms enabling these solidarities and the challenges they pose in resilient coworking contexts. Guided by this framework, our study aims to deepen the understanding of RCSs’ distinctiveness and their specific organizational dynamics through a more fine-grained lens.

To deepen our understanding of RCSs through a solidarity lens, we conducted an exploratory qualitative multiple case study of three RCSs in Northern Italy. The research objectives were to:

• explore the meanings and approaches to solidarity shared by RCSs; and

• investigate organizational practices that foster solidarity-based coworking experiences and identify emerging challenges.

A case study method (Stake, 1995), using multiple cases and adopting cross-case analysis as the analytical framework, was specifically chosen, as it allowed us to investigate how various forms of solidarity manifest across different RCSs and are supported by specific organizational mechanisms shaped by local conditions (Piekkari and Welch, 2017).

This aligns with Miles and Huberman’s (1994) view that studying multiple cases reveals how social phenomena vary by context, enabling richer descriptions and interpretations. Additionally, this approach was used because it enhances theoretical generalizability, which means for us generalizing our results to an established theory, the solidarity framework and deepening its understanding within RCSs. Finally, we aimed for generalizability as generativity – offering insights that other CSs might adopt by applying the solidarity framework identified in our cases (Smith, 2018).

Eligible RCSs were selected based on criteria outlined by Gandini and Cossu (2021):

• management by cooperatives, social enterprises or non-profit associations;

• use of previously unused public spaces through agreements with local municipalities (urban, peripheral or rural);

• free or low-cost access;

• collaboration with local governments and involvement of community actors (e.g. schools, charities, associations); and

• commitment to generating a positive impact on the local territory.

Three RCSs were purposively sampled using a snowball technique, initiated through a series of preliminary interviews with key informants – experts in CSs in Italy – who helped us identify spaces aligned with our theoretical model. Starting from an initial list, the final selection of the three RCSs was based on a maximum variation criterion in terms of size and target group, as well as on the willingness of the RCSs to participate in the study.

Access was negotiated also thanks to the mediation of key informants. The selected contexts agreed to host the research, considering it a valuable opportunity to gain visibility and reflect on their internal functioning. As the research project received ethical approval, all the RCSs participants provided informed consent.

Below is a brief overview of the three RCSs: (P), (S) and (C).

RCS (P) was selected for its network of eight small CSs located in villages on the periphery of a large city. This network has been active since 2018 and is populated by local freelancers, as well as students and young people eager to launch small entrepreneurial activities. Its management board comprised five members, and each space hosted roughly ten active coworkers, with an average tenure of about one to two years.

RCS (S) was located in a village and founded in 2015. It was chosen for its history as a CS oriented toward women and its focus on historical feminist struggles. Its management board consisted of seven members, and it hosted about 30 active professionals, most of them from the RCS foundation.

RCS (C) was selected for being based in a rural area, hosting specifically designers and freelancers with a high turnover rate. Its management comprised three members, with approximately 20 coworkers.

For each of the three cases, semi-structured interviews were conducted with managers, coworkers and local stakeholders. Additionally, ethnographic observations were carried out, with researchers immersing themselves in the daily life of each CS for a period ranging from one to three months.

The interviews aimed to explore the meanings, values and lived experiences of solidarity among the three groups of participants, following a phenomenological-interpretive approach (Eatough and Smith, 2017). Interviews were conducted by the first and second authors mostly in the RCSs settings and lasted between 1 and 2 h. The interview protocols were adapted for each target group and focused on the history of the space, its mission and vision, perceived social innovation impacts and the organizational mechanisms underlying its functioning. Sampling for interviews was guided by the following criteria: managers – individuals with management responsibilities, e.g. founders, project coordinators; coworkers – users of the space with at least two months of continuous use; and stakeholders – representatives of institutions, associations or businesses involved in or impacted by the RCS’s activities. The number of interviews varied across cases because of differences in RCS size and participant availability, as summarized in Table 1. Nonetheless, in each case, the entire management team of the RCS was interviewed, whereas coworkers and stakeholders were reached in variable proportions.

Ethnographic observations aimed to capture everyday practices, routines and organizational culture across RCSs. A researcher conducted weekly site visits (1–2 days per week), focusing on both managers’ meetings and daily coworking activities. The observational field notes were guided by an open narrative template inspired by Engeström’s (2009) cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT). This framework conceptualizes organizations as systems of activity characterized by a shared object/purpose, expected outcomes, tools and rules, a community composed of different subjects, and a structured division of labor. This lens was instrumental in connecting participants’ conceptions of solidarity, social impact and organizational action (as described in interviews) with observed roles, structures and routines. Field notes also included a section for recording theoretical insights and emergent research ideas.

As with the interviews, observations also varied across cases (cfr. Table 1). It should be noted that case C had limited coverage; however, we decided to include it because of its value in offering generative diversity for the research aims.

In our analysis, we adopted what Miles and Huberman (1994) define as a mixed strategy, combining a case-oriented and a variable-oriented approach. The case-oriented perspective considers each case as a whole, focusing on the internal configurations and associations, while the variable-oriented approach seeks to identify recurring themes across different cases.

We began with an in-depth analysis of each case, integrating interview transcripts and ethnographic field notes and conducting a thematic analysis following an interpretive approach (Eatough and Smith, 2017), guided by Sholz’s (2015) solidarity framework and Engeström’s (2009)CHAT. In the first stage, each case’s data were read and reread, and initial descriptive codes were assigned to meaningful excerpts (e.g. “gardening together,” “preparing lunch together” and “negotiating cleaning”). In the second phase, the first codes were grouped in second-order ones. For example, the initial codes above were grouped under the broader code “Distributed caring for common spaces.”

Subsequently, the analysis was guided by our theoretical frameworks – Sholz’s distinctions between social, civic and political solidarity and the CHAT model – which informed the development of broader themes to address the research objectives – namely, to explore the different forms of solidarity and their associated practices, tools and perceived challenges. The themes were discussed and refined collaboratively among the researchers (Eatough and Smith, 2017). Examples of themes include social/civic/political conceptions of solidarity; rules/division of labor/tools enabling solidarity; and management challenges (e.g. “distributed caring for common spaces” was grouped with other codes into the theme “division of labor” and linked to the theme “social solidarity”).

Then, we developed a cross-case display format based on cross-cutting themes – such as the three types of solidarity and the organizing mechanisms supporting them. During this comparative phase, the themes related to the organizational practices and mechanisms evolved in interesting ways, as each case revealed its own distinct cultures, resources, tools and practices to sustain social, civic, or political solidarity. These themes underwent a more fine-grained analysis, allowing us to cluster different mechanisms into a new set of activity types underlying the various initiatives and tools used within the CSs to support different forms of solidarity. Following this stage, we constructed a cross-case narrative synthesis.

In the present paper, we focus on presenting the results of this final phase, illustrating how the three types of solidarity were configured across the three cases, and offering a synthetic overview of the organizational mechanisms that supported them. In the subsequent paragraph, we return briefly to the single-case narratives to describe in more depth certain patterns through which the three forms of solidarity intersect in each setting, along with their related strategies and challenges.

All three approaches to solidarity described in the theoretical framework were observed in the three cases. However, each context allowed the addition and specification of particular nuances to the three different approaches, which appeared in various forms and with different intensities. Additionally, each form of solidarity represented different, yet not mutually exclusive, dimensions and coexisted in a unique combination.

Social solidarity emerged as the most prevalent form of solidarity across all three cases. In the interviews, both managers and coworkers reported a strong sense of belonging to their RCS and described a moral, reciprocal obligation rooted in personal identification with others:

Coworkers acknowledged that shared characteristics – such as being women, parents, or young workers – played a key role in shaping their experience of accessing and feeling part of the RCS community. In many cases, the decision to join an RCS stemmed from negative experiences in previous workplaces, where their personal needs and values (e.g. related to work–life balance) were overlooked or dismissed.

Consistent with these expressed needs and values, the kind of interactions ethnographically observed in the RCSs extended well beyond simple space-sharing. Informal moments such as shared lunches – often used as opportunities to offer both instrumental and emotional support even outside work-related matters – all appeared as meaningful expressions of an intent to inhabit the space and build lasting, affective relationships with like-minded others.

The interviews further deepened this perspective, revealing that mutual help was not seen as an added benefit but rather as the core reason for being part of the RCS, as illustrated by the following quote:

Several practices, specific tools and both formal and informal rules and roles were observed and identified as key elements in promoting the forms of solidarity described above. We grouped these into two distinct organizing mechanisms, which we labeled “Caring for a common dwelling” and “Enabling divergent exploration opportunities.”

The expression “Caring for a common dwelling” refers to coworkers sharing time, resources and skills to maintain the space as a shared home. This emerged both in interviews and observations: through daily participation – sharing meals or coffee breaks, organizing shopping shifts, or cleaning common areas – coworkers reinforced their sense of belonging and mutual commitment, as if they were “mates”:

The label “Enabling divergent exploration opportunities” refers to situations in which coworkers could experiment with new ways of relating – through projects, events, or informal gatherings. These moments allowed them to deepen mutual understanding and connection by engaging in shared educational or social activities, often involving the local community as well:

Organizing free workshops where sharing skills or professional tools; creating physical bulletin boards (with photos) or spreadsheets with coworkers’ job descriptions; holding career networking days; or even compiling a compendium of all the competencies of the coworkers to share in the broader coworking network were observed activities related to this mechanism. Coworkers were always free to decide the degree of their involvement in these projects. This “lightness” was recognized as key:

Civic solidarity also emerged across the three cases. In this approach, coworkers emphasized the importance of strengthening communal bonds by including “others in need” and addressing situations of vulnerability. What underpinned civic solidarity in our cases was a sense of belonging not only to a group of similar individuals but rather to a broader local community. Coworkers – regardless of their personal backgrounds – identified the CS as a way to both “return local,” reconnecting with their territory and its people, and to “leave no one behind,” with special attention to vulnerable neighbors or members of the territory:

This orientation toward civic engagement was supported by several practices, which we grouped in three main organizing mechanisms: “Sharing resources for supporting employability,” “Local partnering” and “Giving back to the territory.”

The first mechanism involved mutual support practices among coworkers with varying levels of vulnerability, often complemented by civic activities aimed at younger people and the broader local community. For instance, several coworkers were observed – or reported – mentoring each other, offering job placement advice and voluntarily participating in social projects. In two cases (P and C), the CSs had even adopted inclusion and work-integration policies for vulnerable individuals, such as survivors of violence or people with disabilities, to guide the admission of new members. The aim was to foster hybridization processes among coworkers and promote social support dynamics within the space.

The second mechanism involved formal agreements with local municipalities and other stakeholders, as well as supportive policies for RCSs. All three RCSs actively engaged in partnerships with a variety of actors: they made use of public spaces, took part in local civic committees, signed agreements with neighborhood shops and participated in community events. These activities were intentionally pursued to foster networking opportunities, secure funding for social initiatives and ensure the long-term economic sustainability of the CSs.

The third mechanism involved practices aimed at energizing and supporting the local community or public administration in exchange for recognition or access to resources. For instance, in Case P, coworkers had signed written agreements committing to dedicate part of their time to voluntary activities benefiting the local community:

Political solidarity in RCSs focuses on a commitment to social change and challenging structural socio-economic inequalities. In this view, coworkers and managers saw RCSs as spaces of social critique, resistance and emancipation. Many of them engaged in coworking also to practice and promote human-centered values, experiencing an alternative to individualistic and consumerist work and life approaches:

Several practices that facilitated this orientation were grouped in two organizing mechanisms we labeled “Spreading discourses of resistance and advocacy” and “Practicing critical self-assessment.”

Regarding the first mechanism, it involves practices of internal and external communication – such as campaigns and mobilization activities – explicitly aimed at shaping a narrative of solidarity, inclusivity, or workplace dignity. Management meetings often focused on refining the coworking’s value proposition and organizing communication channels to craft and also spread this distinctive storytelling. Coworkers were also engaged in the process through social media activities and by aligning their personal branding with that of the spaces:

The second mechanism involved managers engaging in ongoing critical dialogue and self-assessment to ensure that the RCS’s actions and decisions aligned with its political values. This was evident in meetings discussing new social projects, introducing the spaces to newcomers, deciding on accessing public grants and engaging in public debates. Both managers and coworkers participated in this practice, which required continuous coordination meetings, periodic evaluations and post-project reviews. This commitment to critical reflexivity helped the RCSs maintain coherence and distinctiveness in their value proposition.

Table 2 offers a synthesis of the main features and organizational mechanisms that serve the three approaches to solidarity observed in the cases.

The three cases exhibited distinct modalities and intensities in the expression of the three solidarity approaches.

In case P, the civic and political dimensions were strongly emphasized and actively pursued by management, while practices to promote social solidarity were less prominent, relying instead on coworkers’ independent initiatives with uneven results. The managers acknowledged difficulties in fostering coworkers’ engagement with daily space care and creating a warm, stimulating environment. One manager summarized this concern:

Case S showed a more balanced development of social, civic and political solidarity. It was the only setting to actively promote both social dimensions of “care for a common dwelling” and “divergent exploration opportunities.” A dedicated coordinator ensured the maintenance of the space and coworker well-being, facilitating a positive experience. The management also promoted numerous social intervention projects while actively engaging in local civic initiatives and political advocacy. These efforts appeared mutually reinforcing, providing coworkers with a large set of activities and initiatives reinforcing each other and enhancing people’s involvement in the space:

Case C adopted a different approach, operating as a space ‘activated as needed.’ Rather than daily use, coworkers engaged mainly for joint projects. The notion of “care for a common dwelling” was intentionally missing in its strictest sense, in favor of a shared responsibility between coworkers and the managers of the space to keep the space viable, especially through creating events and projects with the local territory (“Local partnering” and “Giving back to the territory”). The rural location contributed to less daily interaction but was compensated by ongoing projects involving community members. Thus, C functioned more as a community hub than a daily workspace.

Table 3 compares the solidarity organizing mechanisms across the three cases.

As it can be noted, social solidarity, particularly the “care for a common dwelling” mechanism, was the least consistently observed. This may stem from RCSs’ outward focus on their social context and territory, which, however, ran the risk of neglecting internal cohesion and the “home” dimension essential to community vitality and innovation.

Civic solidarity was the most developed component across all cases. Conversely, mechanisms supporting coworkers’ professional development were least observed, likely because of the outward social impact orientation overshadowing inward development. A manager in a meeting commented:

Political solidarity was well articulated only in case S, while P and C faced challenges. Particularly, storytelling and communicating their distinctiveness and political stance to both internal and external audiences proved difficult:

Despite the aspiration to narrate themselves and to promote a model of coworking that is inclusive, humane and culturally innovative, networking beyond local boundaries and engaging with other CSs or institutions to amplify their narrative remained limited in all the cases. In fact, even when politically active, none of the cases demonstrated strong mobilization, advocacy, or political representation as described in existing literature as part of work solidarity (Scholz, 2015):

RCSs provide a unique context for exploring solidarity in the workplace. As a matter of fact, RCSs display meanings and practices of social, civic and political solidarity, although these vary in intensity and configuration.

Social solidarity mechanisms are reflected not only in shared care for the physical space and in the creation of an atmosphere that fosters relational closeness among coworkers but also in practices that encourage the exchange and sharing of intangible resources, such as knowledge and learning opportunities (Cnossen and Stephenson, 2022). These mechanisms appear to follow a logic of co-holding (Petriglieri et al., 2019): they provide a space of containment and psychological safety, capable of nurturing a fertile, playful and supportive environment for self-experimentation and professional growth. However, such practices appear to be the least distinctive of RCSs, as they are also widely documented in the literature on traditional coworking (Ivaldi et al., 2021).

Unlike social solidarity, civic solidarity appears to be intrinsic to RCSs. In these contexts, we observed a strong personal commitment from coworkers to actions that benefit the territorial community through direct, local and often personal forms of participation (Cabot, 2016). This recalls the first coworking initiatives that 20 years ago emerged from grassroots efforts and aimed to generate social impact also at the local level. The mechanisms underpinning this form of solidarity can be described through a logic of inclusive boundary working (Ivaldi et al., 2021): by means of social projects, RCSs extend the scope of coworking beyond the physical space, helping to foster inclusive territories and promote community empowerment.

This dimension is so prominent that, in the cases examined, it occasionally eclipses social solidarity, transforming CSs into entities that more closely resemble social enterprises than environments focused on sharing resources and support among coworkers. This dynamic presents both opportunities and risks. On the one hand, it positions RCSs as laboratories for new forms of organizing that integrate productive work with civic work, laying the foundation for a more socially responsible ethos. On the other hand, there is a risk of neglecting the everyday practices of care for the space and interpersonal relationships – elements that may be crucial for nurturing broader commitments to collective projects and causes that extend beyond the boundaries of individual professional tasks (Bennis and Orel, 2024).

Finally, the political dimension of solidarity also emerges within RCSs, albeit with a certain degree of ambiguity. All the examined RCSs appear to embrace a value proposition that promotes a renewed work ethos and a more inclusive and humane model of work relations (Sitrin, 2016). However, in the cases analyzed, this political narrative often seemed to function primarily as a means of engaging coworkers and stakeholders – reinforcing social and civic solidarity – rather than producing tangible impacts on broader communities or institutions. In this sense, RCSs appear to confine their transformative potential, falling short of generating change that transcends local boundaries and influences wider policy frameworks.

Several factors may help explain this limitation. One interpretation relates to the relatively early stage of development of RCSs and the sustainability challenges they face. Another possible explanation is cultural: in the Italian non-profit context, there exists a degree of mistrust toward institutionalization processes, which are often associated with bureaucratic, controlling and restrictive models, rather than seen as opportunities for virtuous interorganizational learning.

Finally, aligning with more critical perspectives, RCSs might risk reproducing a form of soft solidarity – limited to micro-practices of mutual support and individual emancipation – rather than fostering genuine advocacy and collective empowerment. As such, they may struggle to articulate and integrate the diverse interests, needs and voices characterizing today’s fragmented world of work (Wright et al., 2022). Consequently, the vision of RCSs as sites of resistance and mobilization capable of contributing to improved working conditions for future generations remains underdeveloped – and may not, in fact, represent their primary ambition.

These final considerations allow us to highlight that the three forms of solidarity observed in RCSs represent distinct forms of organizational positioning, which the spaces interpret through hybrid and dynamic patterns. This interpretation is also supported by recent scholarship on organizing solidarity, which underscores how the most effective solidarity practices tend to oscillate between mutual aid and holding – focused on nurturing intragroup support – and more outward-facing practices of boundary work and mobilization that are performative and public in nature (Morgan and Pulignano, 2020; Resch et al., 2021). Our case studies suggest that these approaches to solidarity not only coexist but could also mutually reinforce one another, as exemplified in case S. Rather than representing points along a linear continuum, they emerge as interdependent dimensions of a complex organizational dynamic.

At the same time, this hybridity introduces specific tensions and risks. The erosion of the holding function, as seen in case P, can undermine even the civic and political aspirations of solidarity within the space. Conversely, the strong emphasis placed by all three RCSs on political solidarity may paradoxically constrain their broader impact – risking, over time, a weakening of both their capacity for social support and their civic engagement.

In this study, we examined the experiences and organizing mechanisms of RCSs through the lens of work solidarity. Our findings suggest that civic and political solidarity are the most distinctive features of RCSs. However, these dimensions also entail specific risks and challenges. While civic solidarity fosters inclusivity and empowers local communities, this outward focus may at times come at the expense of cultivating social solidarity within the workspace itself. Moreover, although RCSs often seek to disrupt traditional models of work by promoting a political narrative, the political solidarity they enact tends to lack the reach necessary to generate broader structural or systemic change.

This research offers several important implications. From a theoretical perspective, the solidarity framework provides a promising lens through which RCSs can better understand their distinctive purpose and organizational practices, while also offering a new “sensitizing concept” for accounting and evaluating their actions. Further refinement and formalization of this framework could support the development of RCSs and stimulate additional research. For instance, future studies could expand on this work by focusing more systematically on RCSs across the national territory, comparing their practices and local conditions, or by extending the analysis to similar initiatives at the international level. Longitudinal research could also track the evolution of these spaces over time, offering insights into their sustainability and transformation. Moreover, the framework opens avenues for exploring solidarity in a range of other organizational contexts, including traditional firms, interorganizational networks and platform-based structures. Such developments may be of interest not only to researchers but also to coworkers, employees, HR professionals, social entrepreneurs and policymakers committed to fostering or assessing solidarity within their own environments.

This research also has several limitations. First, it focuses in-depth on the organizational dynamics of CSs in northern Italy; future studies could examine similar spaces in central and southern Italy to consider geographical and sociocultural influences. Second, it does not compare organizational cultures across resilient coworking and other nonprofit organizations, focusing solely on solidarity practices within RCSs; further research could explore solidarity mechanisms in diverse organizational contexts, both nonprofit and for-profit. Finally, the psychosocial effects of the three solidarity types were not examined; future work could investigate how social, civic and political solidarity impact coworkers’ well-being or sense of community at different levels.

The authors would like to thank Fondazione Cariplo, the coworking spaces visited, the Editor of the Journal of Workplace Learning and the reviewers for their valuable contribution to the study and the development of the paper.