Rent, capital expenditure and cost per square metre give executives a clear view of what property costs. They do not necessarily show what that property is doing for the business.

A square metre can be occupied and still underperform. It can support a function that no longer needs the same footprint, duplicate another space elsewhere, sit empty for much of the week, or consume operating cost without contributing enough to productivity, collaboration, client experience or revenue.

That changes the financial question. The issue is not simply whether space is expensive. It is whether the organisation is paying for the right space, in the right quantity, for the right purpose.

Utilisation is not the same as Value

Workplace data makes the problem increasingly visible. CBRE reports that global average office utilisation reached 53% in 2025, while peak utilisation reached 80%. The gap matters: an office can feel full at certain moments and still carry significant unused capacity across the rest of the week.

This is why averages alone can mislead. A meeting room may be impossible to book on Tuesday morning while another part of the floor remains consistently underused. A headquarters may need more collaboration space but fewer assigned desks. Two locations may each appear necessary until functions, movement and actual demand are examined together.

The objective is not maximum density. It is productive alignment.

The Wrong Square Metre

For a CFO, underperforming space has more than one cost. There is the direct property cost, but also energy, maintenance, technology, security and service. There is the opportunity cost of capital tied to space that could be consolidated, repurposed or used differently. And there is the organisational cost created when the workplace does not support how the business now operates.

The most useful question is therefore not: How much does our office cost per square metre?

It is: Which square metres would we stop paying for if every one of them had to justify its role?

Which square metres would we stop paying for if every one of them had to justify its role?

From Footprint to Performance

This is not an argument for indiscriminate downsizing. Sometimes the right answer is less space. Sometimes it is different space. Sometimes an underused area needs a new function rather than removal.

The Intrum Hellas headquarters offers a useful example. STIRIXIS Group designed and delivered a 10,000 m² hybrid headquarters that consolidated two buildings into one. The new workplace was organised around a Work from Anywhere model, flexible zoning, smart technology and sustainability. According to STIRIXIS project outcomes, the consolidation reduced real-estate costs by approximately 50%.

The value did not come from treating area reduction as the objective. It came from aligning the footprint with the organisation and the way it needed to work.

Measure Before you Decide

Before renewing a lease, relocating, consolidating or investing in a workplace transformation, leaders should be able to distinguish productive space from trapped space.

That requires evidence: when and how areas are used, where demand peaks, which functions duplicate one another, what the business needs the workplace to achieve and which spaces contribute to those outcomes.

Once those questions are visible, property stops being only a fixed cost to manage. It becomes a business resource whose performance can be measured and improved.

How much of your footprint is performing, and how much are you simply paying to keep? STIRIXIS Group can help identify trapped area, duplicated functions and opportunities for consolidation or higher-value use.
advance@stirixis.com