In this section, we describe the value chains and scenarios that we analyze in this study. The value chains are selected based on the identified key value chains in the EU Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP), a discussion with partners that financed part of the work (see the ‘Funding’ section in the end of the paper), and based on the role these value chains have in the Norwegian economy, both when it comes to value creation and environmental footprint, and also based on their potential for circular strategies. The selected value chains are electronics; textiles; construction and building; packaging and plastics; and metals. This study investigates effects on GHG emissions, value creation, and employment potentials in Norway for the selected value chains up to 2030 considering multiple transition scenarios.
Textiles and electronics are typical consumer goods, and consumption of such goods are responsible for a large share of households’ material and emission footprints . In  (Figure 2), we see for instance that the sector of wholesale and retail trade is the fifth largest when it comes to the total of direct and indirect emissions, and seventh largest when it comes to consumption based emissions. Figure 50 in the same study shows the largest volume of waste from both service sectors and households, a large part is mixed waste, but we assume consumer goods are responsible for a significant part. The wholesale is also the third larges industry in Norway when it comes to value added in 2020 . Consumers play a significant role in the transition to a circular economy, and there are many relevant circular strategies in these value chains. Strategies available for consumers are mainly related to the first six of the ten Rs: from refuse to refurbish. The CEAP has a focus on sustainable products, right to repair, and empowering consumers, especially important for the textile and electronic value chains. Building and construction are among the industries with large environmental footprint within Norway. The construction industry is the third largest when it comes to the total of direct and indirect emissions, and second largest when it comes to consumption based emissions in Norway (, Figure 2). Also, a study by UNEP Resource efficiency estimates that 80% of emissions from material production were associated with material use in construction and manufactured goods . The construction sector is the sixth largest industry measured in value added, 2020 , and there is a large potential for circular strategies related reuse and recycling. Plastics and packaging makes up a large amount of the Norwegian waste streams. Norwegian household use about 220kt plastic packaging such as food packaging every year , which makes up more than half of the plastic waste in Norway. In addition, waste from households and services produce large amounts of waste categorized as ‘mixed waste’ (see ), and much of this is unsorted plastic waste. Using minerals and metals more efficiently is also a key for circular economy, and these materials are important input factors into several of the key value chains identified in the CEAP, like electronics, batteries, vehicles and constructions. Mining and quarrying and the metal process industry are an important part of the Norwegian economy, and has a strong competitive advantage due to an abundance of cheap renewable energy. Norway produces almost 3% of global aluminium, 4% of global silicon and ferrosilicon, and more than 3% of global ferromanganese.
The primary industries agriculture, hunting, fishing makes up a rather small part of the Norwegian economy, 2% in 2020 . Still, the bio-based industries are an important part of the circular economy and have large potentials for circular economy strategies, for instance when it comes to reduce food losses, and use of rest raw materials. However, the biobased side of the circular economy are outside the scope of this study. Oil and gas are the largest Norwegian industry when it comes to value added , but the petroleum products are mainly exported, and used as input, mainly energy in other industries. The main circular strategy of relevance is related to a shift to renewable energy sources. Because of these two issues, this sector is not analyzed in this study despite its size.
All the scenarios are summarized in Table 1. In the following subsections, we give some more details of each value chain and how they might change in the circular economy transition.
The global textile industry has a high environmental impact and raw material consumption . At the same time, less than 1% of the textiles are material recycled for new textiles . Enhanced focus from policy and regulatory bodies, such as the European Commission, is expected to increase the awareness about the environmental impacts and issues, as well as addressing aspects such as fast fashion and barriers for increased reuse and material recycling [57, 58]. Another important innovation for establishing circularity in the textile sector is eliminating over-production. An estimated 30% of all fashion produced never gets sold . Extending the life of 50% of clothes by an extra nine months of active use would reduce carbon, water and waste footprints by around 4–10% each. To increase durability producers need to use better quality materials and design and also increase consumer involved design initiatives. Life-cycle assessment studies, dealing with individual products, have found that a 10% increase in T-shirt lifetime globally results in 100000 t CO2e annually . We have assumed increase in lifetime of textiles of about 10% resulting in a 10% decrease in spending on textiles per yearFootnote 1. At the same time either the demand for repair and share services increases, or spending on all consumption categories increases according the consumer demand model (see Appendix ??).
Electronic and electrical equipment (EEE) is one of the fastest growing waste streams in EU. Today, less than 40% of the materials are recovered, and scarce and valuable materials are being lost. However, there is an increasing amount of EU directives and guidelines for ensuring circularity of electronic goods (e.g. Eco Design, Circular Electronics Initiative, Right to Repair) . Computer, electronic and optical products, and electrical equipment together account for about 2.2% of Norwegian household spending. Wholesale and retail trade has by far the largest share of value creation and employment in the Norwegian EEE value chain. Businesses selling, renting or repairing household electronics are spread over the entire country, thus providing a good base for an increasing sharing and repairing economy all over Norway . We investigate two scenarios for EEE, related to changes in consumer behaviour and increased product lifetime. The first scenario assumes a twice-as-long lifetime, and will result in spending only half as usual on EEE per year. The savings are used according to the ‘average’ use of surplus money in accordance with the description of the consumption model given in Appendix ??. The second scenario assumes that the money saved by buying less is entirely used for repair and share services. The scenarios are presented in Table 1. The scenario assumptions are based on average numbers for savings potential from sharing and renting from a study for the EU  and adapting it to Norwegian expenditure shares.
Reusing and recycling building materials
The construction sector in Norway—which includes new buildings, refurbishment and demolition of buildings and infrastructure—is responsible around 14% of direct and indirect Norwegian emissions, almost two thirds of it for the production and transport of materials . While recent developments and sector initiatives in the industry have increased the recycling of construction waste up to an 80%, these recycled materials do not often stay in the value chain, but rather go to other, non-circular chains . In general, both in Norway and around the world, though, the construction value chains remain linear, with a ‘take, make, dispose’ approach which only recently has started to be rethought .
Circular economy measures can, nevertheless, be applied through the entire value chain of constructions activities, from the material production, building and materials design, construction phase, use of buildings, and end-of-life , with total savings on primary resource and energy use estimated in the hundreds of billions in Europe . These measures should include both those aimed at the materials involved, and to the building itself , evidence from many other case studies in European countries can suggest circular business models with varying models of circular treatment which can indeed become profitable by themselves . Statutory regulations, or lack thereof, and a widely supported product documentation system, are often cited by the relevant actors as main barriers [65, 71, 72], though behavioural and technical barriers have also been widely documented and assessed 
We have designed two scenarios for the reuse and recycling of building materials in Norway. Both scenarios assume that it is possible to reduce up to 20% the amount of virgin materials used, as explained in . Virgin materials are replaced by repurposed materials (Reuse Re-purpose scenario), or by recycled materials (Recycle scenario.) As  assumes, usage of recycled or re-purposed materials requires additional documenting, tracking and certifying; these additional costs incurred in each scenario are allocated in the model as payments of labour, warehousing, IT services, transport and R%D services.
As a part of the EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan, the Plastics Strategy  aims to design a new plastic economy based on circular strategies, focusing design and production towards reuse, repair and recycling. Packaging corresponds to around 40% of all plastic demand in Europe, and to almost 60% of all post-consumer plastic waste . Furthermore, it is estimated that around 95% of the value of plastic packaging is lost after a short single-use cycle, i.e. single-use plastics—packaging and other consumer products such as straws, disposable cups, lids and cutlery—are rarely recycled, despite of their growing contribution to waste generation . Although mostly focused on increasing collection and recycling of plastic waste, the Plastics Strategy also highlights the need for reducing the unnecessary generation of plastic waste, especially from single-use items and over-packaging, and encourage the reuse of packaging.
In our scenarios we reduce plastic packaging by 15%, 30%, or 65% until 2030, depending on the industryFootnote 2. A 65% reduction in plastic packaging can be achieved in construction, trade, accommodation and food services, as well as for textiles. A 30% reduction is assumed achievable for the manufacturing industries, transport industries as well as public services such as health, social work, leisure activities and the like. All other industries are assumed to be able to reduce plastic packaging by 15% over the next decade. These reductions can either be achieved through increased spending on R&D activities, or simply by using less, so that the industry earns more (increase in net operating surplus).
Due to the abundance of cheap renewable energy, metal processing is an important industry in Norway. Norway is a major global supplier of aluminium and ferroalloys (silicon, ferrosilicon, and ferromanganese) [27, 77]. Emissions from ferroalloys and aluminium have the largest share in ETS quota emissions from the process industry in Norway . Of these, most emissions are due to the use of fossil reduction agents, while emissions related to energy use the process industry are very low. The abundance of renewable energy sources such as hydropower and wind make Norway one of the countries where emissions per kilogram metal produced are lowest in the world . Most of the research on circular economy in the metal industry focuses on recycling. However, given that some metals need to be produced from virgin ores, also in a more circular economy, Norway could be a natural source. Therefore, rather than analysing a recycling scenario, we chose the go higher up in the 10 R hierarchy and analyze the impacts of a reduction in metal use. A reduction in metal use can be achieved through higher metal efficiency. Here, we model an increase in efficiency by 1% per year between 2021 and 2030 in those industries that use a significant share of metal inputs: basic metals; fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment; computer, electronic and optical products; electrical equipment; machinery and equipment n.e.c.; motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers; and other transport equipment, following the scenario modelling in, e.g. [46, 79, 80]. To achieve the reduction in metal use, we assume in a first scenario that the savings from purchasing less metal need to be spent on R&D. In a second scenario we assume that efficiency increases were straight forward, so that the industry simply increases profits (net operating surplus). In a third scenario, R&D spending is increased only in the first years, while the industry can capitalize on improved efficiency in the latter half of the decade.