Dynamics influencing the Value Gap

Sector definitions

In this report, when we refer to the Swedish economy, we are speaking specifically about the six sectors defined below, considered together. This framing follows the approach of CGR Sweden, which modelled circular ‘what-if’ scenarios for these same six sectors. Here, we build on that foundation: instead of focusing on material circularity alone, we analyse how these sectors together shape Sweden’s Value Gap.

The six sectors reflect core societal needs and economic activity clusters. [10] They have been adapted slightly from CGR Sweden to clarify boundaries and better capture value dynamics:

Methodological considerations

The use of mixed data sources and methods to calculate the value gap was decided as a practical approach given data availability.

Value creation was calculated using 2019 Swedish statistics [11] in basic prices—that is, the value received by producers before taxes and subsidies. We define this as the value captured through final use by Swedish society, including imports but excluding exports. These values were adjusted to account for both direct and indirect inputs across sectors and then reconstructed by value chain stage using EXIOBASE’s structure. Full details are provided in the Methodology Document.

Value not created and overconsumption were estimated through desk research, supported by expert input and secondary studies. Sector experts at RISE helped identify relevant resources, data, and assumptions for their domains. In addition, a reference group of circular economy specialists—including academics, thought leaders, and industry representatives—reviewed the method, data sources, and assumptions. Their feedback and additional references were incorporated into the final results.

Value lost was estimated using 2019 Swedish waste statistics, with an average price per tonne allocated to each sector. This price, derived from CGR Sweden’s analysis, was adjusted to reflect the residual functional value of goods reaching end-of-life. Losses from imports are excluded from this part of the analysis because of the difficulty in estimating losses abroad and to focus on measures that can be taken within Sweden, leading to and underestimation of the Value Gap. We also quantified value recovery by identifying value-creating treatment pathways and assigning values to each waste stream.

This report builds on the analytical foundation of CGR Sweden, particularly its approach to defining and clustering economic sectors. Here, sectors are conceptualised as systems that group related activities under a single umbrella, rather than narrow industries. This systems-based framing provides a more holistic perspective on material flows, environmental impacts, and opportunities for circular strategies.