Abstract
Introduction
Evidence is growing about the unsustainable practices of developed societies, and the unequal effects of climate change on the most disadvantaged citizens (Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR), 2019; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2022). The discussion of the ecosocial paradigm and ecosocial transition highlights that the current model of economic growth damages both ecological and social systems, destroys natural resources, and increases social inequality (Elo et al., 2023; Helne & Hirvilammi, 2017; Matthies et al., 2020; Matthies & Närhi, 2017). The challenge of transitioning toward a more sustainable world involves understanding the interrelationships between people, society, and the environment, at both local and global levels (Global Sustainable Development Report, 2019; IPCC, 2022). It has been established that sustainable solutions to complex issues can be found through multidisciplinary and multiprofessional cooperation (Matthies, 2017). One important stakeholder in this joint task may be social work, both as a profession and as a discipline. Drawing on previous research literature, we argue that sustainable transition is at the heart of social work, as it aims to promote social justice and human rights for disadvantaged people and communities (Coates & Gray, 2012; Dominelli, 2012; Gray et al., 2012; Hoff & McNutt, 1994; Matthies et al., 2020; Närhi & Matthies, 2001, 2016).
In this article, we are interested in how social work practitioners perceive current ecological crises and how they combine ecosocial work with their own practice in accordance with the ecosocial paradigm. We use the concept of the ecosocial paradigm to emphasize the interconnectedness of humans and nature, social and ecological sustainability, and the coexistence of social and natural environments (Boetto, 2017; Stamm et al., 2023). The ecosocial transition in social work requires a reconceptualization of current anthropocentric understandings of the world and a shift toward a more ecocentric understanding of humans as a relational part of the natural world (Boetto, 2017; Helne & Hirvilammi, 2017; Matthies & Närhi, 2017; Närhi & Matthies, 2018; Stamm et al., 2023.) In addition, the ecosocial transition refers to the efforts of various actors to create sustainable changes in practice (Matthies, 2017). This idea is related to the discussion of the sustainability transition (Matthies et al., 2020) and socio-economic transformation (e.g., IPCC, 2022), but it focuses on the role of social work. It not only challenges developed societies’ current economic model but also forces social work to reflect on and transform its current institutional and professional models (Boetto, 2017, 2019; Coates, 2003; Närhi & Matthies, 2001, 2018; Stamm et al., 2023). Ecosocial work as a social work practice emphasizes the interdependence of humans and the natural world, and it strives to define the role of social work in facilitating the transition to a more sustainable world (Boetto, 2017; Coates & Gray, 2012; Matthies et al., 2020; Närhi & Matthies, 2016).
Historically, social work has understood the environment in a limited sense, addressing social, political, and economic environments but placing little emphasis on the natural environment (Besthorn, 2012; Gray et al., 2012; Hoff & McNutt, 1994; Schmitz et al., 2012). Therefore, there is a need for empirical research on what practitioners think about the relationship between nature and humans and on the factors that prevent and promote the development of ecosocial work practices (Boetto et al., 2020, 2022; McKinnon, 2013). By ecosocial work, we mean a shift toward a deeper and more transformative approach to ecological change in social work practice, forcing social work to evaluate its views of the world and the place of humans within the natural world (Boetto, 2017; Boetto et al., 2020, 2022; Stamm et al., 2023). Although traditionally social work as a practice has focused mainly on the social sustainability of individuals and a large proportion of professionals in developed societies work with individuals on the micro level, more and more social work practices are emerging that take both ecological and social sustainability into account at different levels of practice (e.g., Bailey et al., 2018; Boetto et al., 2020, 2022; Matthies & Närhi, 2017).
The aim of this article is to examine the views of Finnish social workers regarding ecosocial work. We approach this by analyzing qualitative research data on ecosocial work in Finland, answering the following questions: How do social workers see the relationship between humans and nature in practice? From the practitioners’ point of view, what are the institutional and organizational boundary conditions that prevent and promote the practice of ecosocial work? What is the role of social work in the ecosocial transition of society? The data were collected through qualitative focus group interviews and analyzed using thematic analysis.
Ecosocial work
The scholarly discussion of ecosocial work has mainly been theoretical (Ramsay & Boddy, 2017), and it has used concepts such as ecosocial, deep ecological, eco-spiritual, green, socio-ecological, ecological, and environmental social work (Närhi & Matthies, 2016, 2018). Common to all these conceptualizations is the call for an ecosocial paradigm that has its roots in environmental activism, understands humans as part of nature, and sees environmental issues as structural and political. In addition, these conceptualizations foreground the idea of ecological justice as a tool to critically examine human-centered ways of life. According to these discussions, one way to promote the ecosocial transition in social work is to seek “glocal” solutions whereby global changes and the effects of human activity are taken seriously, but at the same time, sustainable solutions are sought at the local level (Närhi & Matthies, 2018). Glocal social work can therefore be defined as an activity that understands the complex and intertwined connections between global and local ecological and social phenomena (Harrikari & Rauhala, 2019).
In addition to existing conceptual and theoretical discussions, more research is needed to explore practitioners’ views about the human–nature relationship and practical solutions for ecosocial work (Bailey et al., 2018; Boetto et al., 2020, 2022; Stamm et al., 2023). Previous studies have found that social workers are no more environmentally conscious than the general population (Nöjd et al., 2023; Shaw, 2011). However, Boetto et al. (2020, 2022) found that a shared discussion of environmental issues with practitioners promoted their understanding and knowledge of the relationship between social work and environmental issues, and this shared discussion and knowledge formation in turn supported practitioners to develop sustainable practices. A recent survey of social workers’ attitudes toward and perceptions of the effects of climate change on their clients in Alaska showed that practitioners believed humans were responsible for climate change, and over 75% of respondents believed that climate change was affecting their clients now and would do so in the future (Allen, 2020). Similarly, a comparative survey of Finnish and Australian human service practitioners found that 69% of respondents in Finland and 93% in Australia believed environmental problems and climate change were having negative impacts on their clients’ well-being (Nöjd, Boetto, et al., 2024).
Current research on ecosocial work has found that ecosocial practice includes making practical improvements to living environments, valuing nature in social work interventions, raising awareness among clients, and strengthening clients’ capacity to engage with environmental issues. Ecosocial work can be carried out at different levels: in work with individuals, groups, and communities and by influencing the structure of welfare services and societal disadvantage (Boetto et al., 2020, 2022; Nöjd, Kannasoja, et al., 2024; Rambaree et al., 2019). By studying practitioners’ views of ecosocial work, we can analyze its potential as well as its role in the ecosocial transition of society.
Research data and analysis
We used focus group interviews to explore social work practitioners’ understanding of the human–nature relationship, as well as their views regarding the factors that prevent and promote ecosocial work. A focus group interview is a discussion that takes place in a selected group and is maintained by the interviewer based on the planned interview framework (Hennink, 2007). In focus group discussions, interviewees collectively negotiate their understandings of the discussion topic, and this helps researchers to analyze their views (Pietilä, 2011).
Recruitment, participants, and data collection process
In autumn 2017, we used email lists, Facebook groups, and personal contacts to invite social work practitioners across Finland to participate in group interviews. The only qualification criterion was an interest in the topic. We collected the focus group interview data from 1 male and 13 female social work practitioners. Our participants worked in different fields and on different tasks in social work, in both rural and urban contexts. Their experience of practicing social work varied, but most had long-standing work experience. The unifying factor was their interest in environmental issues and the development of ecosocial work. The interviews were conducted outside the participants’ working hours by two researchers over a 2-month period in three different locations in Finland. Each of the three groups met in person three times, meaning nine 2-h focus group interviews in total. Not all participants were able to attend every session, but each group meeting included between two and five participants. Each meeting had its own pre-designed theme with specific questions, and the same semi-structured interview was implemented in each group. During the first meeting, the guided discussion mainly revolved around the human–nature relationship and reflections on the connections between social work and the environment. The second meeting focused on the relationship between social work and ecosocial innovations. Ecosocial innovations are various activities that support both social and ecological sustainability simultaneously (Matthies et al., 2019; Stamm et al., 2017, 2020). In the third meeting, the aim was to envision ways of practicing ecosocial work. Although the focus groups’ discussions varied, the topics and direction of discussion progressed in a parallel way in all three groups, without any major disagreements. The fact that our interviewees were already interested in ecosocial issues beforehand influenced the content and nature of the focus group interview discussions and thus the results of our study.
Under the terms of the ethical principles for human research issued by the Finnish Research Ethics Advisory Board and the guidelines for ethical pre-assessment in the humanities (The Finnish National Board on Research Integrity [TENK], 2019), our research design did not need a research ethics statement or ethical pre-assessment. Nevertheless, we took special care to conduct our research in an ethically sound manner in accordance with TENK's (2019) guidelines.
Data analysis
All the interviews were conducted in Finnish and subsequently transcribed, resulting in around 200 pages of text in total. We analyzed the group interview data using the method of thematic analysis, with the aim of identifying the essential topics or themes that formed the data. Thematic analysis proceeds by identifying and categorizing themes in order to enable a closer and more detailed exploration (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In the first stage of the analysis, we read all the group interview transcripts several times in detail. We then coded the transcribed interviews in a data-driven manner. This meant breaking the data down into parts, examining them closely, and comparing them for differences and similarities. After generating initial codes, the coding process then moved into seeking, reviewing, and finally defining the themes. In the final stage, previous research and theoretical literature deepened the content of the themes. Lastly, based on the data and previous research, we selected five themes that best summarized the content of the data. In the Results section that follows, we will open the themes in more detail. The data extracts are accompanied by the interviewee number, interview session, and interview group number.
Results
Based on our thematic analysis, we chose the following five themes that best described and summarized the collected and analyzed data on social workers’ views on ecosocial work: (1) environmentally conscious practitioners; (2) glocalization in practicing ecosocial work; (3) holistic understanding of the environment; (4) vicious cycle hindering ecosocial practices; (5) potential elements of ecosocial practice. Next, we will go through each theme in detail.
Environmentally conscious practitioners
According to previous studies (Boetto, 2017; Boetto et al., 2020, 2022; Nöjd et al., 2023, Nöjd, Boetto, et al., 2024), a social worker's close relationship with the natural environment promotes their interest in ecosocial practices. All our interviewees had a reflexive and close relationship with nature. They regarded the natural environment as a source of relaxation in everyday life. In addition, they all understood the root causes of environmental problems, and their concern about the deterioration of nature was part of their relationship with nature. Practitioners also highlighted ideas about how nature might be included as an untapped and equal resource in social work practice: Nature means a source of relaxation in my everyday life. I also recognise the spiritual connection, when for example jogging in a forest. You really notice how to get rid of all the hurry and stress, but of course ecological values and worries about the environment are also part of that nature connection. (T.1.3) Nature and the environment, its well-being effects are very important in recovering from work, but it could also be used much more in social work if we understood the natural environment as a soothing and equal environment. (H.1.1)
These observations are consistent with McKinnon's (2013) study of environmentally conscious social workers, which found that practitioners had a close and conscious relationship with nature and were able to use nature in their private and public lives. In studies by Boetto et al. (2020, 2022), Nöjd, Boetto, et al. (2024), and Nöjd, Kannasoja, et al. (2024), social workers’ conscious relationships with nature promoted the development of ecosocial work practices. Furthermore, Allen (2020), Nöjd et al. (2023), and Nöjd, Boetto, et al., 2024) found that most social workers were aware of the effects of climate change on their clients. Their conscious and wide-ranging connection with the natural environment also had an impact on how our interviewees understood the global and local dimensions of environmental issues.
Glocalization in practicing ecosocial work
While practitioners recognized the interconnectedness of nature and humans, all three interview groups also discussed how social and environmental problems were interconnected at both local and global levels. Practitioners concretized the causes of the environmental problems that lay behind their clients’ difficult life situations—for example, in the link between climate change and the refugee crisis described in the next excerpt. According to our interviewees, social work could not be done in isolation from the rest of society, and global ecosocial issues were concretized in local environments in their clients’ lives: Of course, climate change has social implications, migration and economic structures are changing, and they also affect social work. It has been said that even the refugee crisis has some roots in climate change and that these effects are subtle. It affects the social phenomena encountered in social work. But then again, those people who we meet, their problems are probably quite consistent. They are unemployed and have had to move to a new community or have no livelihood. In other words, the manifestations of climate change that we encounter in social work are quite traditional, but their root causes lie in global environmental problems. (H.1.2)
During such group discussions, the practitioners were describing a phenomenon we would conceptualize as glocalization—a conceptual tool to grasp the complex interactions between global and local phenomena. Glocal social work has been defined as a continuous dialogue between global phenomena and their local relevance and impact (Harrikari & Rauhala, 2020). For example, climate change as a global phenomenon means ecological, economic, social, and cultural changes, as well as an increase in conflict and migration, which are ultimately seen and solved in local social work practices (Närhi & Matthies, 2018).
Indeed, the practitioners’ discussions focused on interconnected social and ecological challenges. They felt it was important for social workers to understand the interconnectivity between global and local economic, environmental, and social processes in their clients’ life situations, because those processes had direct implications for practice, as can be gleaned from the following excerpt: It is also the fact in our social work practices that we live in a global world. We can no longer think that I work for certain services, or a certain city or area… You can no longer close your eyes. It is part of our social work. Is it raining in Africa or not? That's roughly how it goes. (J.1.3)
According to Harrikari & Rauhala (2020), the development of glocal social work calls for the constructive collaboration of theoretical, ethical, and practice dimensions. The intertwining of ecological and social phenomena at both global and local levels is clearly visible in the daily lives of social work clients, and therefore it should be understood and made more visible in social work practices too. When analyzing the data, however, we found that the meaning of glocality in social work was further complicated by the practitioners’ holistic conceptualization of the environment.
Holistic understanding of the environment
Traditionally, social work's approach to the relationship between social issues and the environment has mainly referred to the social environment. Social work's classical person-in-environment perspective has not considered the built, physical, or natural environments (Gray et al., 2012; Kemp, 2011; Närhi & Matthies, 2001, 2016). As the following excerpt exemplifies, our participants’ understanding of the environment was twofold. First, they understood the environment in terms of nature, which they saw as an unbiased and equal environment that could be used for nature-based interventions in social work. Second, they understood the environment in terms of saving social and material resources, as well as resource wisdom, i.e., the sustainable use of different resources. We argue that our interviewees’ understanding of the environment thus reflects not only systems-theoretical and holistic thinking but also an ecocritical understanding of the environment, and this strengthens existing conceptualizations of ecosocial work on an empirical level (Närhi & Matthies, 2001, 2016, 2018): In my view, the environment affects social work in two ways.… The connection can be that the environment can be used as a social work method, or how nature is used in social work. The home is a place for people, then the office is our place, but nature is not anyone's place, and in nature the roles of the client-practitioner relationship are broken, and maybe a different kind of discussion will be achieved.… And the other way is then, how social work can be more sustainable or ecological, how we could be resourceful, or share and work together to save all kinds of resources wisely. (H.1.1)
Besides social and ecological sustainability, the interviewees also discussed economic sustainability. The traditional aim of social work has been related to support for improved standards of living (Matthies et al., 2020). In the ecosocial transition discourse, social work as a service system has been criticized for its dependence on economic growth, and it is seen as part of the capitalist and consumerist system (Boetto, 2019; Coates, 2003; Matthies & Närhi, 2017; Matthies et al., 2020; Powers et al., 2019). Our interviewees agreed that traditional public social work relied heavily on economic growth, but they called for resource wisdom in all social work activities, as can be seen in the following excerpt: Our whole thinking in this society is based on economic growth and the fact that the economy is growing, and then social work and others benefit in small parts from it. (T.2.3) Certainly, social work has a strong link to the economy and how much resources are needed, but sometimes things could be done with smaller material resources when used wisely and well. (H.2.3)
Economic sustainability also emerged as a perspective when social workers reflected on clients’ sustainable lifestyles at the individual level and how social work could support that level of sustainability. In this context, they also reflected on whether it was ethical to support vulnerable people's economically deficient life situations at a time when the rest of society did not value sustainable ways of life. The following excerpt also highlights the importance of knowledge and reflection about ecological and social justice in everyday social work practice. In this case, the discussion was about the core ethical principles of social work, i.e., the realization of social justice, while also taking account of questions of justice related to the natural environment. In the life situations of individual clients, both social and environmental justice issues should be considered simultaneously (Stamm et al., 2023). This causes confusion and ethical dilemmas for practitioners: If you ask what social work is, then it is pretty much considered to be money, economic stuff, so yes, it is also linked to the very economic and capitalist idea that you should strive for economic and material good. And when there is no money, when the client is in that situation, would it be a bit unethical to say that it is great that you live with little money, and to think about how much you are saving nature when you can’t waste more money on consumption?. (T.2.3)
All in all, our data indicates that participants’ perception of the environment in social work was very comprehensive and encompassed social, ecological, and economic dimensions. We argue that this holistic understanding has great potential as perspective for the development of ecosocial work.
Vicious cycle hindering ecosocial practices
The group interviews revealed another complex phenomenon: a vicious circle that prevents ecosocial practices, by which we mean a superficial understanding of both the goals of social work and sustainability at organizational and institutional levels, which in turn has challenging implications for the conditions for implementing ecosocial work. This finding rests on the idea that diverse developments influence current practices in social work. According to Boetto (2017), many of the values of the profession are associated with modernist concepts, such as individualism and capitalism, which have been adopted and incorporated into conventional mainstream social work practice. A neoliberal ideology related to the economization of public welfare services has also been seen to affect the boundary conditions of practicing social work, especially ecosocial work (Boetto, 2019; Nöjd, Boetto, et al., 2024). In addition, Harrikari & Rauhala (2020) argue that although nature and environmental issues have recently become more mainstream in social work research, the institutional arrangements of social work still provide little room for new practices based on those issues. Studies by McKinnon (2013), Boetto et al. (2020, 2022), Ranta-Tyrkkö and Närhi (2021), Nöjd, Kannasoja, et al. (2024), and Nöjd, Boetto, et al. (2024) have found that organizational and other factors challenge the development of ecosocial work practices.
Our practitioner interviewees argued that narrow understandings of social work's mission and various conventional institutional and organizational arrangements hindered the development of ecosocial practices. In addition, they argued that their current work mainly consisted in bureaucratically organized office work and was based on a neoliberal market ideology. This ideology emphasizes capitalism, privatization, and reductions in government spending, and it is therefore more interested in an organization's finances than in clients’ welfare services (Stamm, 2021; Boetto et al., 2022; Nöjd, Boetto, et al., 2024). Neoliberalism has been critiqued for contributing to environmental degradation through the unsustainable production and consumption of natural resources (Powers et al., 2019). From practitioners’ perspective, this type of neoliberal management, which is based on bureaucrats’ discretion (Närhi et al., 2014), means that the “where” and “how” of social work practice are strictly predetermined at the management and organizational level, while work based on professional discretion (Närhi et al., 2014), and relationships with clients, and clients’ well-being is considered to be less important for the organization. The excerpt below highlights the practitioners’ worry about losing the core mission of social work which they understood to be examining the social reality of people in their natural and authentic environment with them. Interviewees argued that the superficial understanding of sustainability found in current social work organizations did not strengthen the process of ecosocial transition. The practitioners felt that traditional office work with individuals was seen as more important than less conventional ways of practicing social work, even though they believed the latter might be more effective for clients’ well-being: I think the biggest obstacle is that social work has lost its core function. Maybe we need bureaucratic social work somewhere, but I don’t think it is the core of social work. And it can easily be a very narrow perspective on social work, so that it is seen only as the fulfilment of statutory obligations. And in such a perspective, the environment does not seem to have any place, it doesn’t seem to fit into it in any way. If we study social reality together with our clients, I think it can’t be investigated only in the office. If I go hiking with my clients in the woods, others might question what I’m doing there. Ironically, it's much more effective than when I go to the office.… Then I really work. (H.1.1)
The understanding of the relationship between social work and sustainability found at the institutional and organizational level was seen to be weak and inconsistent (see also Stamm, 2021). The same phenomenon has been identified in studies in Australia (Boetto et al., 2020, 2022) and Finland (Nöjd et al., 2023; Nöjd, Kannasoja, et al., 2024; Ranta-Tyrkkö & Närhi, 2021). The social workers on our data reported that their organizations acknowledged the connection between social work and sustainability but did not elaborate on it in-depth and that the emphasis was placed on a neoliberal view of the economy. The institutional understanding of sustainability was seen to be quite superficial—merely a matter of recycling materials, and not at all of exploring what the ecosocial transition might concretely mean in social work practice, as described in the next excerpt: What can the organisation do for sustainability? We are not discussing it. If you talk about saving things in your organisation, it's always a discussion about the economy or something. There is no talk that this could be an ecologically good alternative. (J.1.2) Sustainable development is seen as saving paper or recycling something and maybe sorting waste in our workspaces. It's not linked to how we do social work, or how social work values are related to sustainable development. (J.1.3)
The interviewees told that sustainability issues were still seen as taboo at the organizational level in welfare services. These topics were allowed to be discussed only in ways that were not too radical and did not seek to change the service system's structures. Such institutional and organizational views could be interpreted as “greenwashing,” as seen in the following excerpt from a discussion between two practitioners who concluded that there was no room for any radical questioning of the system: When we have meetings with other practitioners or managers, I try not to emphasise ecological sustainability. It's sad that you can’t always talk about it even with your colleagues. (T.3.1) I can’t develop social work alone. I feel that the change should come from a larger group, or more from the top management. (T.3.2) Yes… deeper ecology especially, it's a kind of taboo… that it's ok to recycle…. (T.3.1) Little things. (T.3.2) Yeah, little things you can do when they don’t threaten the system. But somehow the deeper ecological sustainability issues are still a taboo topic in our organisations. (T.3.1)
In addition to organizations’ narrow understanding of the mission of social work, interviewees reported having too few resources and too much workload. According to the interviewees, there was no time or resources to consider ecosocial work. Lack of time meant a lack of new practices and innovations, leading practitioners to rely on conventional and bureaucratically organized social work practices (Boetto et al., 2022; Ranta-Tyrkkö & Närhi, 2021; Nöjd et al., 2023, Nöjd, Kannasoja, et al., 2024). Indeed, practitioners argued that ecosocial work was quite a radical practice in the sense that it could be practiced only very rarely under current organizational structures and boundary conditions, as explained in the following excerpt: Well, I was thinking about social work resources that it is probably one big structural obstacle. If you have the exact resources to carry out statutory tasks, there is no time to stop and think differently, or no time to do structural work and advocacy, because it is even impossible to carry out your day-to-day individual case work, there is no room for such work. In that way, then, ecosocial work can be seen as a radical way of practising social work. (T.3.1)
To sum up, our data indicate that organizations’ narrow understanding of social work's mission and tasks, along with their superficial understanding of sustainability, leads to neoliberally oriented management and practices, whereby too few resources are allocated to social work, thus hindering the development of ecosocial practices. Because resource allocation is poorly targeted, there is no time to develop new practices. In addition, because dealing with sustainability issues at the level of work communities is seen as taboo within organizations, those issues are not discussed, and new innovations and work practices are therefore rarely found. Amid the vicious cycle of these factors, it is challenging for an individual practitioner to practice or develop ecosocial work. It is therefore important to consider how to turn the vicious cycle into a virtuous cycle that promotes ecosocial practices.
Potential elements of ecosocial practices
By comparison with the elements of this vicious cycle, which hinders the development of ecosocial work, the group interviews revealed that ecosocial work was largely promoted by positive aspects of the same factors, i.e., management support, resources and time to develop practices, and joint and shared discussions in working communities (Boetto et al., 2020, 2022; Ranta-Tyrkkö & Närhi, 2021; Nöjd et al., 2023).
When we asked interviewees what ecosocial work practices they had implemented or would like to implement in their work, three different ideas of ecosocial work emerged: (1) community-building, which meant focusing on groups and communities outside of office environments; (2) back to nature, which meant using outdoor activities and nature-based interventions in social work; and (3) resource wisdom, which meant using existing resources sustainably and thereby saving social, economic, and ecological resources simultaneously.
Our interviewees shared examples of how they worked with people in communities. They described creative ways to practice out of the office, leaning more on community-based practices and less on managerial and bureaucratically organized social work focused on individuals.
Practitioners also discussed taking concrete action in local neighborhoods and raising ecological awareness with their clients. In fact, they described fairly traditional forms of community work, but they added ecosocial elements to that work by trying to find situations where different dimensions of sustainability could be achieved at the same time—for example, dealing with food waste, as described in the next excerpt: At our local unemployment action centre, the young unemployed people began to grow plants in the greenhouse, and grandmothers prepared food from those products in the centre. Then it was said again that the unemployed are being spoiled… and I said that in fact they really understand the idea. If you think of ecologically sustainable development, recycling and so on, it is a meaningful job and a rational thing to do if you consider the ecological starting point and the production of your own food to be a good idea and an activity that people are proud of. Therefore, I’m thinking that community social work is a way to work. The best thing is that you can think with the people about what you want to do and what might make sense. Social work could be done through excursions, group activities or various creative stuff. It is important that you can do it with the people. (H.1.3.)
Interviewees talked about how they strived to find diverse meanings of sustainability and to reflect on how different dimensions of sustainability might be combined simultaneously, not only in their clients’ life situations but also in their own work and welfare services in general: I think clearly that ecosocial work doesn’t have to be ecological directly. But then in practice if you think, if you can empower people in their own life, then it may also have clear links to a reduction in the ecological footprint. Why would you build services today from a business-as-usual perspective? An ecosocial practitioner can begin to perceive ways to produce these ecosocial benefits, at the same time creating socially and ecologically sustainable paths. (T.3.3)
To sum up the opportunities for ecosocial work, our group interviews suggest that practitioners want to develop their work in a more sustainable and holistic direction. However, the institutional and organizational boundary conditions that prevent ecosocial work must be made visible, and efforts must be made to remove them. It is also important for social work to critically evaluate its own practices while simultaneously implementing social work practices from professional and ethical points of view and emphasizing social work's potential role in the ecosocial transition of society.
Discussion
The aim of this article has been to examine Finnish social workers’ views of ecosocial work and its boundary conditions. Our analysis enables a broader consideration of the role of social work in the ecosocial transition of society.
Overall, the five themes that best summarized the content of the data were as follows: (1) environmentally conscious practitioners; (2) glocalization in practicing ecosocial work; (3) holistic understanding of the environment; (4) vicious cycle hindering ecosocial practices; and (5) potential elements of ecosocial practice.
According to our findings, social work practitioners understand the environment as a very broad and holistic concept. In addition, our results support the finding from previous research that a practitioner who is aware of the importance of the ecosocial transition in society, and who has a close connection with the natural environment, will be more interested in developing an ecosocial work practice (Boetto et al., 2020, 2022; Nöjd et al., 2023). Therefore, increased knowledge about the intertwining of ecological, economic, and social phenomena on both global and local levels is another important factor enabling ecosocial work. With knowledge and increased understanding, social workers can better recognize the importance of ecosocial work and the sustainable well-being of their clients.
The environmental crisis and the need for an ecosocial transition can be seen at both the global and local levels at the same time. Therefore, ecosocial glocalization, whereby the global challenges of the ecosocial transition are solved at the local level, should be further analyzed in terms of what it might mean for social work practices. To find sustainable solutions, it is important to study how the social, economic, and ecological dimensions of sustainability are connected to clients’ life situations from a glocal perspective. Based on our data, this means practitioners need a more informed understanding of the glocal phenomena they encounter in their clients’ situations every day. Local ecosocial challenges can be better solved if we understand their global roots.
Our study shows that the ecosocial transition of society presents social work with both challenges and opportunities. In focus group interviews, the social workers described the challenges to ecosocial work as a vicious cycle influenced by many different levels of development processes and traditions related to social and public services. Although the practitioners in our study were environmentally aware and they reported that some colleagues and managers did acknowledge the connection between social work and environmental issues, they said this connection was still ignored in everyday practice, especially at the organizational and management levels. To summarize, the neoliberal transformation of social and public services has shaped a narrow definition of social work's mission and tasks and a superficial understanding of sustainability, and this has led to social work practices where too few resources are allocated to social work, further challenging the development and innovation of ecosocial practices. If social work is understood only as bureaucratic and administrative case work bounded by office structures, social workers’ opportunities to promote ecosocial work are limited.
Despite this vicious cycle, the social workers described various ways of practicing ecosocial work and how a positive cycle in developing ecosocial work might be possible. Three different ideas for ecosocial work emerged from our data: (1) community-building, which meant focusing on groups and communities outside of office environments; (2) back to nature, which meant using outdoor activities and nature-based interventions in social work; and (3) resource wisdom, which meant using existing resources sustainably and thereby saving social, economic, and ecological resources simultaneously.
Based on our data, it is necessary to reveal and try to remove the factors that prevent the development of ecosocial work. Furthermore, confirming the results of previous studies (Boetto et al., 2020, 2022; Ranta-Tyrkkö & Närhi, 2021; Nöjd et al., 2023), our research has shown that the hindering factors are often the same as the promoting factors. If the organizational and management levels can both grasp social work's wider potential role in society and gain a deeper understanding of sustainability and social work's role in promoting it, it is possible that the hindering factors might become more promoting factors.
Limitations of the study
In focus group interviews, the practitioners were very unanimous in their views. The data collection method over three interview cycles resulted in a collective thinking process, during which interviewees’ views on the issues discussed became clearer and more visible thanks to joint negotiations within the groups. The interviewees also experienced the research as a learning process, and in fact during the last interview sessions, all three groups—who were completely unaware of the content of each other's conversations—highlighted the need to continue the discussion at the local level in order to exchange ideas and develop practices. The fact that our interviewees were already interested in ecosocial issues beforehand did influence the results of our research, and therefore our findings do not necessarily represent the views of the average social worker.
In addition, our research was carried out in the context of the Nordic welfare state model, which is traditionally associated with the strong role of public welfare services in promoting citizens’ well-being (Kokkonen et al., 2018). The views of the social workers we studied—and thus our research results on the factors that promote and hinder ecosocial work—were probably influenced by their knowledge of the Finnish welfare service system, with all its strengths and weaknesses. On the other hand, in a comparative study of Finnish and Australian human welfare professionals, similarities were found in practitioners’ relationships with nature and their views regarding ecosocial work, despite the different welfare service systems (Nöjd, Boetto, et al., 2024). This may indicate that neoliberal ideology and related practices have globally affected the understanding of the role of social work, at least in developed societies (Kamali & Jönsson, 2018). Nevertheless, more follow-up research is needed on ecosocial work in different welfare service system contexts and societies.
Conclusion
This article has presented the results of an empirical study on the boundary conditions of practicing ecosocial work from the perspective of social work practitioners. The results are important for trying to develop the tasks and role of social work as part of the ecosocial sustainability transition.
In summary, the current challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, public finance problems, and social inequality are forcing social work to look for new and more sustainable ways to act. Based on our findings, we argue that social work can potentially play an important role in the ecosocial transition of society, because social workers encounter their clients’ ecosocially challenging life situations every day. However, this potential will not be realized if welfare service systems’ organizations and managers continue to define both sustainability and the mission and tasks of social work on the basis of neoliberal ideology. Therefore, one key question to consider is how best to advance the role of social work and thus utilize the expertise and knowledge of social workers in the multidisciplinary ecosocial sustainability transition, while social work, both as a profession and as a discipline, must continue to reflect on its goals and activities from the perspectives of the ecosocial paradigm and sustainability transition.
Footnotes
Ethical approval
Funding
Declaration of conflict of interests
Authors’ contributions
ORCID iDs
