Mottainai

A thing can be worth more than it costs

Some Japanese Boro textiles were repeatedly repaired and passed down through generations. Today, such pieces are also admired for their aesthetic qualities. For poor rural families in the 19th and early 20th centuries, however, repeatedly mending fabric was also a material necessity: cloth was used for as long as it remained usable.

This reflects an idea that still makes mottainai relevant today.

The expression is often translated as “What a waste.” However, a linguistic analysis points to an important difference from the English word waste: mottainai places greater emphasis on the idea that a better use would have been possible.[2]

Something was not simply there and is now gone. Its value could have continued to be used.

Food could have been eaten. An object could still have served someone else. A product might have been used for longer.

The value of a thing does not automatically end when our interest in it does.

A cultural ideal is not the same as a waste system

It would be easy to turn this idea into an appealing story: Japan has a distinctive culture of appreciation and therefore treats things particularly sustainably.

Reality, as so often, is not quite that simple.

Japan generates significantly less municipal waste per capita than the OECD average – only around two thirds as much. At the same time, however, almost 80 percent of municipal waste is incinerated. Japan’s municipal recycling rate is lower than that of economically comparable countries. Plastic waste generated per capita is also above the OECD average.

Mottainai is therefore not proof of a country’s sustainability.

A cultural ideal does not necessarily show how a society actually functions. It can also reveal what kind of loss that society perceives as a loss in the first place.

A feeling does not automatically change behaviour

Can mottainai encourage people to treat things and resources more carefully? There are indications that it can.

Research offers some evidence, but no simple answer.

Social psychologist Masayuki Kurokawa found in several studies that a stronger mottainai disposition was associated with behaviour aimed at preventing further loss of value. By contrast, a mottainai feeling induced experimentally for a short period did not reliably produce the expected behaviour.

The research therefore neither argues against the significance of cultural attitudes nor suggests that an appeal to conscience is enough. Wanting to preserve the value of something and actually having the ability to do so are two different things.

Preserving value requires opportunities

Whether a product continues to be used does not depend solely on personal attitudes. Repair costs, spare parts, product design and accessible repair services all influence whether its practical value can be preserved.

Japan’s current Fundamental Plan for Establishing a Sound Material-Cycle Society therefore focuses, among other things, on longer use, repair, maintenance and reuse. The aim is not merely to recover materials after disposal, but to preserve the value of products and resources for as long as possible.

The European Union is addressing the same problem. Since 31 July 2026, the new European right-to-repair rules have been applicable. They are intended to make it easier to repair certain products and, among other things, improve access to repair services, information and spare parts.

This is not a European version of mottainai. But both perspectives touch on the same question:

What conditions are necessary for existing value to continue to be used?

A circular economy does not begin with recycling. It begins much earlier – with the lifespan of a product, its repairability and the possibility of passing it on or reusing it.

Not everything has to remain

Respect for things also has its limits. Not wanting to throw something away is not automatically sensible. Appreciation does not mean having to keep everything forever. The crucial distinction is between preserving something and simply holding on to it.

An object does not deserve an eternal life simply because it exists. The more interesting question is whether its remaining value can still be used meaningfully.

Mottainai does not provide a ready-made solution.

But the concept changes the way we look at things. An object does not automatically become worthless simply because we no longer want it. And waste does not begin only when something ends up in the bin.

It begins where existing value is unnecessarily lost.

Sources: [1] Victoria and Albert Museum: “Make your own: Japanese 'Boro' bag”; [2] Hiromichi Sakaba (2022): “Mottainai as a Japanese Cultural Keyword: A Key Semantic Difference to the English Word Waste”, Osaka University; [3] OECD (2025): “OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Japan 2025 – Assessment and recommendations”; [4] Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan (2025): “MOE Japan Discloses the Estimated Amount of Japan's Food Loss and Waste Generated in FY2023”; [5] Masayuki Kurokawa (2014): “Psychological functions of mottainai affect”, Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology; [6] Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan (2024): “The Fifth Fundamental Plan for Establishing a Sound Material-Cycle Society”; [7] European Commission (2026): “Right to repair: New consumer rights for easy and attractive repairs”.

AI Transparency