*4.1. Quantitative Research*

The on-line survey of CEDaCI Network Members was published via the CEDaCI Network and comprised of 18 questions, most of which required multi-choice/tick box responses, but 3 also offered respondents the opportunity to add comments. Standard data collection and analysis software was used to set up and run the survey, which was live for 14 days. The response rate was fair (44/100 NM) and once the data were cleaned there were 32 usable datasets; although a larger dataset would have been better, it was reasonable for this type of survey and deemed valid during a global pandemic. COVID-19 adversely affected many businesses and individuals (e.g., through illness, work-life balance, caring

and educator roles, furlough, and redundancy); however, there was a marked increase in data traffic and associated activity and workloads in the data centre industry as populations worked, studied, and communicated remotely, which limited time for DCI members to engage in non-essential activities like surveys and interviews.

The respondents included actors from 8/11 life cycle stages/subsectors as shown in Figure 1 above. Most respondents work in companies with more than one main activity while others work in companies that engage in main and secondary activities, as shown in Table 1 below, which also showed that the main businesses of respondents vary, and 8 are directly involved in data centre systems design and operations (2 and 4), 3 in refurbishment and reuse (8 and 9), 1 in de-installation (5) and 1 in recycling (10); secondary business activities include systems design (2), data sanitisation (7), refurbishment, and reuse (8 and 9) and recycling (10).


**Table 1.** Respondents to CEDaCI engagement survey—identified by subsector—32 responses.

Respondents' roles are as follows: the majority (18/32) are employed as data centre design, strategy, management, and operations consultants, or as sustainability and circular economy leads for global and national private companies, public, and non-profit organisations, and all respondents (32) hold senior positions, such as managers, senior managers, CEOs, directors, and owners.

Table 2 below shows that all 32 respondents were Network members by default but analysis of the results showed that 9 were only Network members, 16 participate in the Network and either the Working Groups, or Co-creation Workshops, and 7 participate in the Network, Working Group, and Co-creation Workshops.

**Table 2.** Respondents to CEDaCI engagement survey–level and type of activity–32 responses.


The respondents have been engaging throughout the project and 27/32 volunteered information about the date that they joined the Network: 11 as soon as it was launched in January 2019, a further 10 during 2019 and 6 in 2020 Network membership is open to anyone whereas participation in the Working Group and Co-creation workshops was by invitation only or referral to ensure that there were representatives from as many subsectors as possible and numbers were manageable. The WG and CCW invitations were circulated soon after the project launch and again most respondents (16/19) joined, and have participated regularly, since invited, and 3 have joined between September and

December 2020 by referral, all of which indicates commitment to the project and activities (see Table 3).

**Table 3.** Respondents to CEDaCI engagement survey–length of membership–27 responses.


23 Network members also connect with the CEDaCI team outside the organised events (see Table 4) but connection appears to be local (e.g., Network members based in the UK connect with LSBU, those in France with WeLOOP, in the Netherlands with GreenIT Amsterdam/SDIA, and with those in Germany with Wuppertal Institute); this could be due to language or mutual contacts in the local area, for example. Levels of contact also vary and although 9 members have not yet made personal contact 11 members make intermittent contact, 3 once a month, 6 once since joining, but 1 person contacts the project team at least once a week. Most respondents selected more than one reason for joining the Network: only 8 joined to provide advice and 13 to connect with other members of the Network; the most popular reasons cited were to share information (with the project partners) (17) and to follow project progress (17). With regard to the benefits of Network membership, once again, some respondents selected one benefit, others 2, and others 3. The main benefit was identified as being able to connect with colleagues in the same subsector (selected by 14 respondents), the second was to get information about data centre sustainability (9), and only 5 respondents saw connecting with other subsectors as beneficial; this is not entirely surprising and reflects the silo-working practice (see Table 4). As previously stated, silo working and attitude is common to the DCI, so the results were not entirely surprising and the project team realise they have to do more to engage cross-sectoral communication. Finally, 11 respondents follow CEDaCI on LinkedIn, 4 on Twitter, and 2 on both platforms, i.e., 18/32 respondents; this could be due to a low level of engagement with social media across the group or to ignorance about the CEDaCI accounts. The team will publicise the links more widely through other DCI accounts and work to increase Network membership and engagement.

**Table 4.** Respondents to CEDaCI engagement survey–reasons for joining and benefits: 23 responses.


In summary, the respondents were very positive about the project and their experience; their early enrolment, and regular participation in activities, reflects their on-going commitment to the project.

They are also informed about sustainability, and their senior positions and roles, within their organisations, indicate that they all have potential to influence practice either inside and/or outside their organisation. They see participation as beneficial for networking, although connections tend to be local and limited to their sub-sector rather than

cross-sectoral. There was no negative feedback, but there were several suggestions about increasing project visibility and marketing drives to increase uptake, including demonstration and training sessions for the UK government Sustainable Technology Group, which positively endorses the project and its output. This feedback was useful, but very general, and so, a further study was undertaken to gain deeper insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the project and stakeholder engagement so far.
