Strategies for circular economy in the Nordics: a comparative analysis of directionality

Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2024, 17, 443–457 https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsae017 Manuscript Strategies for circular economy in the Nordics: a comparative analysis of directionality Mari Wardeberga,, Henrik Brynthe Lunda,b, Jens Hansona, Riina Kärkic,, Linda Rekosuod, Anna Tenhuen-Lunkkae and Sarianna Palolae aSINTEF Digital, Department of Technology Management, Norway, S.P Andersens Veg 2, 7031, Trondheim, mari.wardeberg@ sintef.no, [email protected] bNorwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Geography, Norway, Edvard Bulls Veg 1, 7049, Trondheim, henrik.b[email protected] cThe Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners, Finland, Simonkatu 6, 00100, Helsinki, [email protected] dEkokumppanit Oy (EcoFellows), Finland, Kelloportinkatu 1 C, 33100, Tampere, [email protected] eVTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, Finland, Kivimiehentie 3, Espoo, Sarianna.P[email protected] In this paper we mobilize sustainability transitions literature to explore directionality for circular economy (CE) transitions, by drawing on and adapting a framework for analysing roadmaps to empirically investigate CE strategies. Specifically, this paper explores circular economy CE strategy documents in the Nordics, the commonalities and differences between them and to what extent they provide directionality for CE transitions. Through a systematic document analysis of 39 CE strategy documents, we find that the strategy documents are vague and lack clear political visions. As such, we argue that the documents fail to provide clear directionality for CE transitions and question their usefulness. Additionally, the paper demonstrates how CE strategy documents can contribute to promoting the development of industries that couple to national ambitions for the development of new, green industries. Keywords: circular economy, directionality, Nordic countries, sustainability, transition JEL Classifications: O20, O38 Introduction Meeting climate mitigation and neutrality targets requires tackling emissions associated with production and consumption. The circular economy (CE), unlike the linear economy, is a means to achieve economic prosperity based on the protection of natural resources, through methods such as product reuse, material recycling, changes in product design and closed-looped strategies (EEA, 2016; EMF, 2015; Kirchherr et al., 2017). CE has been put forward as a key enabler for more sustainable production and consumption patterns (Chizaryfard et al., 2021; Kirchherr et al., 2017, 2023), but will require a fundamental shift in the ways we think about and design our economic system (Geissdoerfer et al., 2020). This transition is a highly complex process, where territories and regions have different opportunities and challenges such as industrial clusters, differences in population density, natural resources, regulatory framework and cultural differences (EESC, 2019; Sepponen et al., 2023). CE research typically spans three levels: micro (e.g., consumer level), meso (e.g., industrial parks) and macro (e.g., nation, region, cities) (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Merli etal., 2018). On a macro-level, CE literature has predominantly concentrated on ‘circular cities’ (Marjanović et al., 2022; Tapia et al., 2021). However, the CE discourse extends beyond academia, gaining prominence in the European Union (EU) and national policy agendas. The EU takes a leading role in advancing CE policies, emphasizing the shift from a linear economic system. These endeavours, integral to the broader plan of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission by at least 55% by 2030 and achieving climate neutrality in Europe by 2050 (European Commission, 2019), are further detailed in the New Circular Economy Plan 2020, which outlines legislative and non-legislative Received: June 30, 2023; editorial decision: March 11, 2024; accepted on: May 22, 2024 © The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/17/3/443/7692834 by SINTEF Unimed user on 27 October 2025 444 | Wardeberg et al. actions for a more sustainable and resource-effective economy (European Commission, 2020). In this article we draw on sustainability transitions (ST) literature to analyse CE strategies. The ST literature explores the complexities of transition processes and the conditions necessary for rapid change in systems with rigidities and path dependency, policy and governance play a key role in overcoming hindrances, fostering transformation and providing directionality (Markard et al., 2012; Mazzucato, 2018; Schot and Steinmueller, 2018). Strategies, action plans and roadmaps (hereafter referred to as strategy documents) are crucial policy instruments for conceptualizing future sustainability trajectories. Such documents play a pivotal role in offering sense of directionality for ST, but may hinder long-term transitions due to limited perspectives on innovation pathways (Miedzinski et al., 2022). The absence of clearly defined political visions poses additional obstacles to the advancement of ST and CE efforts (Circular Cities and Regions Initiative, 2022). This study addresses a significant gap in the current literature on CE transitions. While previous research, notably the examination of CE in Dutch textile transitions through a mission-oriented innovation framework (Reike et al., 2023), has provided valuable insight, the directionality of CE strategy documents remains relatively unexplored. In response to this, our paper takes a holistic approach by empirically examining CE strategy documents at a macro level across the Nordic countries—Finland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden. This empirical analysis is prompted by the understanding that the geographical context significantly influence CE transitions, occurring in specific locations characterized by unique features such as industry structures, governance approach and resource endowment (Hansen and Coenen, 2015). We add a novel perspective to this discourse by introducing a fresh application of the roadmap analysis framework proposed by Miedzinski et al. (2022). By adopting this framework to suit the analysis of CE strategy documents, this paper contributes to the CE literature both in terms of applying and adapting ST literature to the CE context, as well as by an empirical analysis of CE strategy documents. Our study refrains from evaluating the implementation status of these documents, focusing instead on the diverse approaches adopted by the Nordic countries in progressing toward a CE. The primary objective is to stimulate discussions on how governments can effectively guide the transition towards a CE. We argue for the need for radical system change of prevailing regimes, and that strategy documents, through clear directionality, have the potential to offer opportunities for new path developments for CE, such as industrial growth or technological advancements. Therefore, the present paper proposes the following research question: What are the key commonalities and differences of CE strategies across the Nordic countries, and how can CE strategy documents provide directionality for CE transitions? The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces the theoretical background, emphasized through three important elements of ST research: innovation, directionality and industrial path development. Section 3 presents the research design and methodology, while Section 4 discusses the strategy documents and the main findings. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the discussion and proposes suggested recommendations for research advancement. Theoretical background CE transitions are linked to processes of complex socio-technical systems change (Köhler et al., 2019; Markard et al., 2012), which includes actors (such as individuals, firms, organization and networks), institutions (norms, regulations, standards and good practices), material artefacts, and knowledge that are interacting (F. W. Geels, 2004; Markard et al., 2012). Typically such processes entail change in established systems of production and consumption (Markard et al., 2012), often characterized by different forms of path dependency and lock-ins (Geels and Schot, 2007). CE remains a contested and ambiguous concept (Kovacic et al., 2020). According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, CE is defined as an ‘industrial system that is restorative and regenerative by intention and design’ (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). Kirchherr et al. (2023), building on their earlier research (2017), conducted a comprehensive analysis of 221 CE definitions. They highlight an emerging consensus on essential CE principles, including reuse and recycling, and underscore the imperative for fundamental shifts to foster CE transitions. Originally, CE strategies focused on waste management, but have progressively evolved to embrace more systemic approaches (Liu et al., 2018). This evolution includes a shift from the 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycling), and the expanded 6Rs (reuse, recycle, redesign, remanufacturing, reduce and recover), to the more comprehensive 9Rs (0R Refuse, 1R Rethink, 2R Reduce, 3R Reuse, 4R Repair, 5R Refurbish, 6R Remanufacture, 7R Repurpose, 8R Recycle and 9R Recover) (Kirchherr et al., 2023; Potting et al., 2017). The 9Rs exhibit a hierarchical prioritization, varying from high circularity (low R-value) to low circularity (high R-value) (Potting et al., 2017). The transition toward a CE requires changes in both production and consumption system, signifying the need for innovations beyond the development of new technologies (Hermann et al., 2022). Consequently, the pursuit of specific circularity strategies entails diverse types of innovation, socio-institutional changes, as well as adjustments in product design and revenue models (Potting et al., 2017). Innovation in sustainability transitions In the ST discourse, innovation is important for socio-technical systems change and influencing the Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/17/3/443/7692834 by SINTEF Unimed user on 27 October 2025 Strategies for Circular Economy in the Nordics | 445 trajectory of such transitions (Geels and Kemp, 2007). Within a CE context, innovation assumes a multifaceted role. On the one hand, it facilitates the creation of a more durable product, reducing material turnover and waste. Conversely, innovation in production processes necessitates the replacement of existing products and machinery with more circular alternatives, thus intensifying material resource requirements and contributing to increased waste (Kovacic et al., 2020). Central to the CE is also eco-design, an innovation approach aimed at producing longer-lasting goods, minimizing material and energy inputs, enhancing substitutability of inputs and restoring ecological balance (Kovacic et al., 2020). Radical and incremental innovation represent different innovation modes that influence socio-technical change differently (Mäkitie et al., 2023). Incremental innovations provide improvements and optimization of the current system of production and consumption (Boons et al., 2013), while radical innovations destroy or supplant an existing product or business model and lead to a reshaping of socio-technical system (Henderson and Clark, 1990). The latter, in particular, holds significant potential to affect substantial changes necessary to address sustainability challenges (Markard et al., 2012), including the transition towards a CE. In the ST literature, a focal point is the notion of system change, or the change from one socio-technical system to another, extending beyond technical enhancements, but includes considerations of policy frameworks, user practices, infrastructure development and industry structures (Geels, 2006). Technological, social and institutional innovation emerge as important enablers of ST (Kivimaa et al., 2021). Technological innovation, for instance, can enable the decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation (Hermann et al., 2022), yet the extent of circularity may be influenced by limited substitutability between different inputs (Kovacic et al., 2020). Substitution is one argument distinguishing strong and weak sustainability. Strong sustainability asserts that natural inputs cannot be replaced by labour and technology, whereas weak sustainability allows for greater substitution among different inputs, enabling the increase of alternative inputs in case of scarcity of natural inputs (Kovacic et al., 2020). Social innovation, or new ideas, practices or models which address social needs of challenges, challenge the dominant regime, foster learning and experimentation and the way in which institutional change can be triggered (Avelino et al., 2019). So-called transformative social innovation occurs when changes in social relations and practices contribute to institutional change (Avelino et al., 2019). It should be noted that public discourse often reflects a ‘simplified’ notion of social innovation occurring for instance through empowering ‘communities’, assuming that actors already are sufficiently empowered to act upon policy change. As a result, scholars within social innovation argue for the need for acknowledging the complexities of social innovation and associated processes of empowerment (Avelino, 2009; Avelino et al., 2019). Likewise, institutional innovation is the process of creating or changing institutions. These are formal or informal rules and norms which shape societal, economic and political interactions, enabling the emergence, diffusion and scaling up of new sustainable technologies and practices, through -for examplenew forms of governance, policy instruments and business models (AlMalki and Durugbo, 2023). Institutional innovation can also involve challenging the dominant paradigm and power structures which hinder ST, and regulations, policies and formal institutions can either act as drivers for disruptive innovations or as a source for removing barriers and encouraging system change (Kivimaa et al., 2021). Transformative social innovation has been argued to co-evolve with other forms of change, such as institutional innovation, as part of wider socio-technical systems change (Avelino et al., 2019). Policy and directionality Institutional change, including the introduction of new policies and regulation, is a critical dimension of ST because such change has the potential to alter selection environments and guide the direction of innovation. In established selection environments (conceptualized as prevailing socio-technical regimes in the ST-literature) the search for and ultimately selection of novel innovations is likely to go in the direction of those that fit and align with current patterns of production and consumption (Kemp et al., 1998; Smith and Raven, 2012). Institutional change and policy can alter the rules that make up selection environments, and thereby be part of system innovation, and enable the development and diffusion of novel solutions, which may face resistance or low commitment (Smith and Raven, 2012). From the perspective of fostering transitions, policy thus not only plays a role in stimulating more innovation, but also in setting a direction for the type of innovation that is necessary for sustainability transitions (Weber and Rohracher, 2012). While traditional innovation policy focused on more innovation and economic growth, attention to societal challenges, such as climate change and environmental degradation is increasing (Grillitsch et al., 2019; Mazzucato, 2018; Schot and Steinmueller, 2018). Bergek etal. (2023) argue that directionality entails improving the rate of innovation, while stimulating innovation in certain paths rather than others, while phasing out unsustainable options. Schot and Steinmueller (2018) highlight that all types of innovation are not equally valuable in terms of creating or worsening societal challenges and the transformation process. They argue that for policymakers, directionality refers to ‘making societal choices over alternative pathways of development’ (Schot and Steinmueller, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/17/3/443/7692834 by SINTEF Unimed user on 27 October 2025 446 | Wardeberg et al. 2018, p. 1562). Mazzucato (2018) supports this, arguing that policymakers should define a desired direction of change, for example in the form of missions, to provide more concrete guidance to actors and stakeholders. Conversely, Schot and Steinmueller (2018) argue that directionality should be allowed to emerge bottom-up, through experimentation and negotiation involving a wide range of actors and stakeholders with the aim to establish collective priorities which go beyond the limits of established regimes. The notion of directionality comes with new challenges for policymakers, as overarching policy objectives need to be converted into concrete actionable targets (Bergek etal., 2023), and a large responsibility falls on policymakers to shape the direction of ST (Köhler et al., 2019). In the context of ST, strategies need to set long-term objectives or targets for change, which often are based on visions of the perceived future, and outline pathways that governments can take to achieve such objectives (Rogge and Reichardt, 2016). Formal political vision, materialized through strategies, action plans and roadmaps, can mobilize actors, thus providing a collective direction and facilitating local development (Hansen and Coenen, 2015; Köhler et al., 2019). Within a policy mix, strategies are often the first element, followed by policy instruments and policy processes, such as economic, regulatory, or informative policy instruments (Kautto and Lazarevic, 2020; Rogge and Reichardt, 2016). Policies are not only instruments to achieve specific goals but also a means to shape the trajectories and outcomes of sustainability transitions, by potentially changing selection environments. A range of policies may stimulate directionality and shape actor’s expectations (Wanzenböck et al., 2020). At the same time, policymakers need to stimulate the implementation of multiple pathways simultaneously. As such pathways unfold, policymakers also need to monitor and adjust or adapt their measures accordingly (Bergek et al., 2023). The utilization of strategies and roadmaps is one example of this (Miedzinski et al., 2019), and the type of policy approach focused upon in this paper. There is little attention in the current literature on how strategy documents actually influence policy direction. Parks (2022) seeks to enhance the understanding of how directionality is implemented in transformative innovation policy in Sweden, arguing that ‘policy layering’ shifted the focus towards demand articulation rather than directionality. Hull (2008) finds that some governmental documents can be influential in achieving more sustainable transport solutions in England through their support of specific projects or indirectly influence investment decisions of organizations. However, one of the challenges of implementing CE principles is to design and communicate effective strategies and roadmaps that can guide the transition from a linear to a circular system. Miedzinski et al. (2022) analyse the elements that are relevant for evaluating how roadmaps connect with transition processes and system innovation. They consider what types of innovation are expected to drive change and present several important features to evaluate such documents: where we are now, where do we want to go and how to get there. Roadmaps are therefore time-based frameworks that enable the illustration, development and communication of strategic plans (Miedzinski et al., 2022). CE strategies can present clearly defined objectives or desired outcomes, including key steps or milestones towards an envisaged future within a certain timeframe. Usually, both strategies and roadmaps describe instruments that encourage a CE transition and act as inspiration for stakeholders and actors (EESC, 2019). However, as argued by Miedzinski et al. (2022), roadmaps may still fail to bridge visions and action, with weak embeddedness in broader policy mixes and low reflections on possible pathways for transitions. Territories and narratives in CE Understanding the territorial specificities of different areas is crucial to envisioning a successful CE transition. Tapia et al. (2021) assert that spatial dimensions play a critical role in shaping the operationalization of CE at various scales, particularly at regional and local levels. The factors influencing this encompass land-based resources, agglomeration factors, accessibility conditions, technical and technological capacity, knowledge-related factors and governance and institutional drivers. During the past decade, governments across cities, regions and countries have increasingly begun the transition towards a CE (Wuyts and Marjanović, 2023), and in particular cities are locations with a strong potential for CE transitions due to high concentration of resources and stakeholders (Tapia et al., 2021). Tapia et al. (2021) argue that places and territories are to some extent bound by pre-existing socio-technical structures such as existing industry structures, technological capabilities and institutional and governance structures. Moreover, Jakobsen et al. (2022) highlight that societal challenges tend to be context-specific, thus varying locations are expected to experience diverse influences, leading to different priorities and problem definitions across different policy levels. Regarding a CE transition within the Nordics, we argue that these pre-existing structures influence the potential for increased circularity within territories and sectors and should be included in analyses of CE strategies. These preconditions can also shape the narratives put forward in CE strategy documents. This warrants an inclusion of the literature on sociology of expectations, to conceptualize the visions and expectations put forward in CE strategies, and how they relate to pre-existing structures within territories. Within the literature on the sociology of expectations, concepts such as expectations, visions and narratives have been developed to describe how commonly held opinions about future development influences the development of policies, technologies, societies and economies (Berkhout, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/17/3/443/7692834 by SINTEF Unimed user on 27 October 2025 Strategies for Circular Economy in the Nordics | 447 2006; Borup et al., 2006). Arguably, the strategy documents for CE within the countries covered in the analysis of this paper, promote some sort of visions or expectations of how these transitions will play out, and what these entail regarding industrial development, competitiveness and value capture. In line with Berkhout (2006, p. 302), we regard these future visions as ‘collectively held and communicable schemata that represent future objectives and express the means by which these objectives can be realised’. In relation to CE transitions, strategy documents provide visions for future industrial development where the basis of value creation is less connected to the use of natural resources than that in the linear economy. Thus, strategy documents can also provide insights on national industrial development narratives. We find that the arguments for applying the narrative and expectation concepts to explain development at the regional level, can also be applied at the national level. In the same way that future visions outlined in strategy documents establish directionality for targeting value chains and waste streams to enhance circularity within countries, they can also provide legitimacy on specific paths on industrial development (Lund and Vildåsen, 2022). Research design and methodology This paper builds on work done within a Horizon 2020 research project on boosting the circular economy in the Nordics. The paper relies on secondary data, in the form of CE strategy documents to understand the status of CE in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, their differences and commonalities and how these strategy documents provide directionality for CE transitions. We performed a systematic document analysis, which is a procedure to review and analyse different types of documents and requires the data to be examined and interpreted to draw out meaning, provide useful insights and develop empirical knowledge (Bowen, 2009). The research process consisted of four interrelated steps: 1. Development of an analytical framework based on relevant literature. 2. Identification of relevant documents in the four countries. 3. Analysis of the identified documents guided by the developed analytical framework. 4. Synthesising the analysed data. Miedzinski et al. (2022) offer an analysis assessing how roadmaps connect to ST processes and system innovation. Our adaption of this perspective extends beyond a ST roadmap to encompass CE strategies and action plans. Utilizing categories and sub-categories (presented in Table 1), we made specific adjustments: (i) We added the concrete questions in Table 1 in order to further specify the type of phenomena linked to the overall questions, which are defined in Miedzinski et al. (2022), and to connect the evaluative dimensions to strategies for CE. The theme of innovation, given its breadth and multiple understandings, was elaborated upon in particular, amongst others to encompass and reflect different types of innovation, R-strategies and value chain dynamics. (ii) The themes and associated overall questions included in Table 1 are identical to those applied in Miedzinski et al. (2022), albeit with fewer overall themes (we excluded actionability, coherence and learning and adaptability). The first three themes offer a descriptive analysis of document diversity, providing insights into directionality and how the documents address CE challenges. The fourth and fifth themes, focusing on evidence, alignment and credibility, represent evaluative dimensions (Miedzinski et al., 2022). This framework facilitates a systematic comparison of CE strategy documents in the Nordic countries, illuminating their role in shaping the transition towards a CE. A total of 39 documents (see Supplementary Appendix) from the four Nordic countries have been analysed, with the aim of identifying the main similarities and differences among these documents and how they promote directionality for CE transitions. Twenty-one of the documents relate to the national level, while 9 regional and 9 local strategy documents from Finland and Norway have been analysed. In Finland, the analysis included the regions of Uusimaa and Pirkanmaa, encompassing Helsinki and Tampere at the local level. In Norway, the attention was directed towards Viken County and Fredrikstad Municipality. This examination acknowledges the critical role of regional and local documents in assessing the challenges associated with translating vague national visions into actionable initiatives at the local and regional levels. Specifically, the investigation aimed to understand the extent to which national strategies provide directionality at different levels, acknowledging that national strategies may not inherently set clear direction regionally and locally. National CE strategy documents are static snapshots of governmental visions for future public strategies. This study confines its analysis exclusively to strategy documents, recognizing both the advantages and limitations of this approach. The decision to focus solely on documents stems from the desire to comprehensively understand the policy intentions and priorities articulated by governments in their strategy documents. CE strategy documents encapsulate governmental visions for CE transitions. These visions generate expectations among the actors involved, producing a shared agenda and, ultimately, provides direction for development and CE transitions (Borup etal., 2006; Konrad et al., 2017; Lund and Vildåsen, 2022). As such, this document-centric approach allows for a structured, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/17/3/443/7692834 by SINTEF Unimed user on 27 October 2025 448 | Wardeberg et al. comparative analysis of directionality for CE across the Nordic countries, including regional and local levels, thus also identifying patterns and facilitating cross-level comparisons. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the inherent limitations of this approach. First, the analysis does not capture real-time or dynamic shifts in CE practices, as the documents represent a snapshot that may not reflect ongoing developments. Additionally, relying solely on documents may overlook contextual nuances influencing CE transition, thus the dynamic nature of directionality of CE transition may be overlooked. While this paper recognises these shortcomings, a document-centric focus may offer foundational understanding of directionality, serving as a valuable starting point for further, more nuanced analyses that incorporate diverse data sources. The identification of relevant documents on a national level was done through web searches, using keywords such as ‘CE strategy’, ‘CE roadmap’, ‘CE action plan’ ‘plastic strategy’, followed by country-specific searches. This process was complemented by the researcher’s existing knowledge on CE strategy documents from prior projects, cross-verified for relevance through engagement with project partners. Consequently, a comprehensive list of open-source documents was compiled, primarily from the respective countries’ governmental websites. Regionally and locally, document selection was guided by discussion with project partners, including representatives from each region and local area, ensuring a thorough representation of relevant material. The analysis was conducted by individual researchers and practitioners involved in the research project, using an Excel spreadsheet version of the framework in Table 1, organized by country. To delve deeper into the aspects within the scope of this paper, the documents were also analysed in terms of their directionality. The final step involved synthesizing the information gathered from the countries, which was accomplished through discussions and workshops among the project partners, both practitioners and academics. Qualitative document analysis relies on the interpretation of the researchers, and in our case also the practitioners, which can introduce subjective or biased understandings of the selected documents (Bowen, 2009). However, agreed-upon systematic methods and open discussions addressing the emerging findings and challenges during the analysis mitigated such limitations. CE across the Nordic countries This section examines CE strategy documents in the Nordic countries, exploring their directionality for CE transitions and highlighting limitations. Utilizing the structure in Table 1, Table 2 extrapolates the themes and questions to illustrate the commonalities and differences among the Nordic countries CE strategy documents. For instance, the first category in Table 2 closely aligns with questions 2 and 6 in Table 1, while category 2 corresponds to the second theme, and so forth. Additionally, Table 2 incorporates findings on the interconnection among national, regional and local levels—an aspect not covered in Table 1, but crucial for the contextual understanding of this analysis. Industrial development and policy The Nordic countries’ strategy documents prioritize specific sectors, value chains and waste streams, offering some degree of directionality and guidance for CE transitions. Such prioritization provides insights into the countries expectations for which areas are targeted to increase circularity, as well as areas for future value creation. As highlighted above, formal political visions and policies can mobilize actors, providing a collective direction and the emergence of regional innovation systems (Hansen and Coenen, 2015; Köhler et al., 2019). Narratives and expectations set out in the strategy documents play a role in shaping the industrial and regional development by providing collective visions and legitimizing industrial development. The strategy documents thus serve as a source for such visions and state the objectives on the path that are desirable. The prioritized sectors and areas reflect the countries’ existing industrial and economic activity to some extent. For example, Danish strategy documents argue that CE in their prioritized sectors can lead to improved resource efficiency, increased competitiveness, value creation, export opportunities, functioning markets for waste and recycled materials and innovation across value chains. Norway also argues for substantial value creation potential, while Finland highlights the economic potential of R&D investments, market formation and reduction of environmental damage. Arguably, the narratives are influenced by the ideas of productivity and efficiency, in the same manner as observed by Marjanovic et al (2022). The prioritized sectors for CE transition align with their current industrial structures and capabilities, in line with Tapia et al. (2021), but also provide legitimation for developing new industries important for national growth. By providing incentives, funding and regulatory frameworks conducive to innovation, governments can stimulate the emergence of novel industries aligned with CE principles, and proactive government intervention through industry and innovation policies can catalyse the emergence of new industries important for CE transitions. For instance, the Norwegian CE strategy (Klimaog Miljødepartementet, 2021) devotes much attention to the importance of developing recycling capacities for batteries, particularly from electric vehicles (EVs). Arguing for the potential to develop a circular value chain for batteries, this foregrounded the development of battery recycling in Norway, and the emergence of companies such as Hydrovolt, a front-runner in Europe capable of recycling batteries from 25,000 EVs annually (Tekna, 2022). The success of developing a Norwegian Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/17/3/443/7692834 by SINTEF Unimed user on 27 October 2025 Strategies for Circular Economy in the Nordics | 449 Table 1. Dimensions and questions for strategy document assessment. Inspired by Miedzinski et al. (2022) Theme Overall questions Concrete questions Scope, purpose and objective(s) of document What is the main rational purpose and scope of the strategy/roadmap? 1. What is the defined specific purpose (ambition) and scope (narrow/broad, multiple sectors/value chains)? What is the wider context in which the strategy/roadmap are developed? 2. To what extent does the document consider the wider context (how does it relate to the broader debate on CE)? Portrayal of the future and description of how change occurs How does the strategy/roadmap introduce visions and pathways (e.g., narrative scenarios, targets, milestones action plans)? 3. Does the document specify a target/ goal? 4. Does the document provide a timeline (e.g., 2030/2050)? 5. Does the document present specific reduction targets? 6. Are specific goals linked to larger (EU/ national) goals? How do they discuss assumptions about probable futures and include narratives explaining how future change is expected to occur? 7. How does the document envisage the future of the value chain in focus? 8. Do the documents specify steps to achieve the envisaged future? 9. Is there an action plan to follow up the strategy? Role of innovation: The level of ambition and aspiration of innovation activities, including experimentation and system innovation. The extent in which the document encourages innovation specialisation in areas relevant to sustainability transitions. What type of innovation activity does the document promote to enable sustainability transition? 10. What kind of innovation does the document present? a) Technological innovation? b) Social innovation (change among users/consumers? c) Business model innovation? d) System innovation (wide reaching change across actor groups)? 11. Where in the value chain does innovation take place? Does the document focus on particular segments, or focus on more overarching change across multiple sectors and value chains? 12. Does the innovation(s) link to a particular R-strategy (if so, which one(s))? 13. How does the document discuss the need for (innovation) policies to achieve the vision? 14. Does the document discuss solutions for experimentation/demonstration? What is the level of ambition of innovation? 15. How does the document discuss wide reaching systemic change or incremental improvements? Is the document based on a strategic prioritization process that includes existing and emerging areas of specialization? 16. Does the document specify prioritized areas for innovation and technology development (are there particular technologies/sectors/VC segments that are prioritized)? 17. What are the main drivers and barriers for CE? Use of evidence: The use of evidence and scientific knowledge to underpin the analysis, vision, pathways, and action plans of roadmaps. What type of evidence are used to inform the strategy/roadmap process? 18. Describe the academic basis for the document. Is the document based on reports or white papers? Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/17/3/443/7692834 by SINTEF Unimed user on 27 October 2025 450 | Wardeberg et al. recycling industry for EV batteries hinges on the widespread adoption of EVs among Norwegian consumers. The Norwegian government has incentivized this transition through generous tax and other fiscal incentives, resulting in 21% of all cars being EVs, and 4 of 5 new cars sold in 2022 being EVs (Bråthen, 2023). The early adoption of EVs has generated high volumes of EV batteries requiring recycling, and the territorial conditions (Tapia et al., 2021) have been essential in the development of the recycling industry. Furthermore, the development of battery recycling can be regarded as closely linked to the battery production narrative in Norway, which is looking to be a new industrial venture in Norway, with potentially five different factories with the potential for exporting batteries to a value of 200 billion NOK (18.5 billion USD) (Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, 2022; Burheim and Gregersen, 2023). We also observe that the degree of directionality provided in national strategies related to specific waste streams varies among the Nordic countries. In the case of plastics, for instance, all countries have formulated specific targets for reduction of plastic packaging, but only some countries provide more specific actions (Sweden, Finland, Denmark), alongside goals for increasing percentages of recycled plastics and reusable packaging. Denmark and Sweden also show ambitions targeting plastics producers, such as design for reuse and recycling. Sweden articulates specific actions towards producers (packaging and disposable products) to provide consumers with information on how to handle waste, which illustrates a wider perspective on plastic value chains. Norway’s ambitions and level of detail in terms of actions seem to be less ambitious, despite having published strategies and action plans for plastics. While regional and local strategy documents play a crucial role in translating national visions, the absence of specific measures may hinder the translation of broader policies into localized, effective actions (Köhler et al., 2019). At the county level in Norway, the documents do not promote any industrial development or sector. They do, however, in the regional planning strategy, promote CE in the sense that they envisage Viken being a leading county within Norway in terms of circular economy and the transition towards increased circularity. Yet, without any specific instruments or achievable targets, this remains vague and does not provide directionality for the envisioned CE transition within the region. The local level documents from Fredrikstad municipality are a bit more specific, arguing for the local waste sector to move into new areas (higher up in the value chain) to capture more value, moving away from simple handling and processing of waste. Additionally, the local documents argue for a reinforcement of the CE activities taking place within the municipality, in relation to the Øra industrial area, thus the commitment to CE principles requires precise actions not only at higher administrative levels but also at regional and local levels (Bergek et al., 2023). In Finland, there appears to be a stronger connection between the regional and local levels and the national level, suggesting a more integrated approach between administrative policy levels. Technology and innovation In line with the ST and CE discourse, emphasizing innovation as a pivotal force driving transitions (Geels and Kemp, 2007), the strategy documents uniformly underscore the significance of innovation and technology as fundamental drivers for achieving a CE. However, they exhibit distinct focal points. Finland places a significant emphasis on R&D funding, aligning with its tradition of investing in research and innovation (OECD, 2008), whereas Denmark focuses on circularity in product design, reflecting its commitment to integrate circularity strategies from the early stages of product development. Norway adopts a more general approach to technological innovation, recognizing the multidimensional nature of technological advancements across various sectors and value chains. In contrast, the Swedish documents place a greater emphasis on the transformative role of digital technologies and their capabilities. Generally, the Nordic countries acknowledge the crucial role of digitalization and data in realizing a CE, thus aligning with the notion that digitalization, employing technologies such as Internet of Things, Big Data and sharing platforms, act as significant drivers for the CE (Circular Cities & Regions Initiative, 2022). However, the documents lack a clear direction for implementing radical or incremental digital innovations and the lack of directionality poses a challenge in aligning radical digital Theme Overall questions Concrete questions Alignment and credibility: The extent to which roadmaps align actor strategy with the shared vision and engage actors in transformative innovation. How are stakeholders selected, consulted, and engages at different phases of the strategy/ roadmap process? 19. What kind of stakeholders have been involved in developing the strategy/ roadmap? 20. Does the strategy present who contributed to developing the strategy/ roadmap? 21. How inclusive is the process? Table 1. Continued Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/17/3/443/7692834 by SINTEF Unimed user on 27 October 2025 Strategies for Circular Economy in the Nordics | 451 Table 2. Comparison of CE strategy documents across the Nordic countries. Norway Finland Sweden Denmark Reduction ambitions compared to the EU Less ambitions than the EU (lowemission society with 90-95% GHG reduction by 2050) More ambition than the EU (climateneutrality by 2045) More ambition than the EU (negative carbon emissions after 2045) Follow the EU (climateneutrality by 2050) National vision for a CE A society where resources are used and reused efficiently in non-toxic circular systems, replacing the extraction and production of new resources. (1) Recycling rates targets must reach the levels set by the EU; (2) reduce waste volumes and increased recycling; (3) reduce consumption of unrenewable natural resources. (1) CE through sustainable production and product design; (2) CE through sustainable consumption and use of materials, products, and services; (3) CE through non-toxic and circular cycles; (4) CE as a driver for businesses and other actors through actions that foster innovation and circular business models (1) the waste basket must be broken; (2) the waste sector must be climate neutral by 2030; (3) sorting out 80% of Danish plastics from incineration in 2030 Prioritization of sectors Food-, construction sector, process industry, bioeconomy, trade and services, electronics, batteries, packaging, plastics, textiles, construction materials Resource-wise buildings, bioeconomy, production, energy production, food Food-, construction-, and building sector, materials and minerals, plastics, textiles, renewable and biobased raw materials Food-, industryconstruction-, and waste sector, the bioeconomy, plastics, textiles Innovation Technological A more generalized approach to technological innovation. Innovation in design phase. Digitalization. R&D funding. Strengthening digital capabilities. Investments in innovations. Digitalization. Strengthening digital capabilities. Digitalization. Digitalizedenabled tracking and sharing. Circular product design. Digitalization. Social Consumers need to be motivated to make more sustainable choices Advocate userfriendly CE systems, effective communication to inspire consumers. CE in education and work-life skills. Emphasis on changing consumer behaviour and patterns Emphasis on changing consumer behaviour and patterns Institutional Extended producer responsibility. Business model innovation. Legislative and economic instruments and incentives. Tax incentives. Business model innovation. Tax incentives for CE solutions. Business model innovation. Regulatory change. Business model innovation. Radical /Incremental Incremental Incremental Incremental Incremental R-strategies Generally low R-strategies Generally low R-strategies Generally low R-strategies Generally low R-strategies Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/17/3/443/7692834 by SINTEF Unimed user on 27 October 2025 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/17/3/443/7692834 by SINTEF Unimed user on 27 October 2025