As mankind’s awareness of environmental problems increases, and products and services in all industries are looking for ways to become more sustainable, so too does the funeral industry need to innovate to reduce their environmental impacts. However, due to cultural norms and ethical principles tied to death care, such innovation is not easy to introduce to the public. As a result, sustainable developments in the funeral industry, and literature based thereon, are still scarce. This study aims to address this research gap through an exploratory, quantitative research approach. Although these problems play at a global scale, this study focuses on the Dutch scenario, taking recent changes and current developments into account. Based on an analysis of the resource flows in current mainstream funeral alternatives, a comparison between the funeral and waste management industries is made. Whereas both fields of work have a lot in common on technical and logistical levels, their social aspects differ significantly. The waste management sector is not bound to nearly as many social factors, and is significantly further in the development and integration of sustainable systems that people use on a daily basis. Real-life examples of these new developments are analysed, to identify which factors played a prominent role in the social acceptance by its users, the public. In order to do so, a custom social acceptance framework for (quasi-)circular funeral technologies, based on pre-existing frameworks from different theoretical backgrounds for social acceptance in other contexts, is developed. The seven values of community, connectedness, family, cleanliness, trust, procedural fairness and attitude are identified as most influential in the contexts of composting municipal organic waste and the collection and sorting of MSW (Municipal Solid Waste). These values are then analysed in the context of death care literature, which allows for a comparison between both industries. With such varying cultural backgrounds to these technologies, social values in an acceptance framework are also bound to show plenty of differences. Interesting to note are the numerous similarities, reinforcing the initial assumption that the two industries are comparable. Based on the identified differences, ideas are conceptualised that implement aspects that should positively influence the introduction of sustainable waste management systems in the death care industry. These ideas, and other relevant developments in the industry, are discussed with various funeral experts. Different perspectives of these topics can be analysed through their unique backgrounds. With their feedback, the ideas are updated with experience and knowledge from within the field, which is used to develop two sets of recommendations. A key differentiation is made between sustainable funeral alternatives and (quasi-)circular funeral technologies. The recommendations provide a wide variety of approaches to increase the social acceptance of either two categories. Although there’s room for both developments at the same time, it is recommended that the overall social support for sustainability in the funeral industry is increased through the improvement of currently available alternatives, before novel (quasi-)circular technologies are ultimately introduced onto the market. The proposed suggestions represent a range of different approaches: from technological aspects, to digitalisation of services, and much more. In the end, it is important to realise that the selected funeral method is only responsible for a part of the total emissions related to the whole funeral ceremony. On a larger scale, one’s funeral is only a fraction of the emissions one creates in a lifetime. However, sustainable funerals can be a tool to provide a meaningful end to a personal quest of living more sustainably.