Quiet Absence: Situating Ecosocial Work in the Swedish Social Work Context

Introduction

As climate change increasingly shapes social conditions worldwide, ecosocial work is gaining prominence within social work scholarship (Forbes, 2025). Encompassing green, ecological, and environmental social work, it expands the traditional person-in-environment framework by recognising the inseparable relationship between human and planetary wellbeing (Rost, 2026). This perspective challenges social work to move beyond its anthropocentric roots and engage with the defining environmental issues of our time. Yet at the same time, in Sweden, we are lagging behind - slow to take up the mantle of such a transformative concept. Emerging like a poorly motivated horse next to the fast moving train pace of climate change, eco social work in Sweden has limited visibility both in academic and professional spheres (Kaffrell-Lindahl, 2025). Given the onslaught of climate impacts and changes that are occurring throughout the world, this absence is not only concerning, its alarming - especially given the increasing recognition of ecological challenges as a social justice issue (Stamm et al., 2023) and our fundamental remit to respond to this as social workers. Here we, a group of social work researchers, give our response to the first Eco social work conference which took place in Halmstad, Sweden in November 2025, and ask the question of why is Sweden not embracing Eco social work?

The conference

The first ecosocial work conference in Sweden, was developed incidently by the first eco social work network who could see that while there were engaged social work researchers out there, they were often in low numbers and spread out through disparate universities. Gathering them together had a number of effects and intentions - to promote eco social work as a growing area of social work, to invite in cautious colleagues who may have been toying with the idea on the peripheries, and to give fortitude to those doing eco social work research that they were not in fact alone. To some extent this was achieved. For those of us who attended, it reinforced a feeling of community and purpose, sharing ideas and taking solace in a mutual understanding of why eco social work needs to be at the forefront of practice during this time of climatic instability. However, we also felt a sense of disheartedness, as the attendance was relatively low, maintaining low numbers in spite of the global challenges that face us. It is probable, we concluded, that eco social work is still seen in Sweden as a niche area, rather than something that is an integral foundation on which social work must sit.

If I cant see it, its not real

One potential explanation as to why Sweden isnt fully promoting Eco social work, could lie in the low visibility of climate impacts within Sweden. Unlike regions in the Global South, where ecological change is often immediate and tangible, or Central and Southern Europe, where extreme weather already causes annual deaths, in Sweden this may appear distant or abstract (Chang et al., 2026). This distance could foster a perception that Swedish society is, to some extent, insulated alongside a broader Western assumption of resilience to ecological change.

We’re rich, so we will be fine

Climate privilege can mean wealth is often implicitly understood as protective (Munro et al., 2025), while the welfare state is perceived as a safeguard against future risks (Stockholm University, n.d.). In Sweden, this may contribute to an assumption that climate change will be experienced elsewhere or that its impacts can be absorbed through existing systems of welfare and public provision. Such beliefs risk fostering complacency and may help explain the limited engagement with ecosocial work. While wealth and strong institutions undoubtedly provide important resources for adaptation, they do not eliminate vulnerability. Climate-related risks are unevenly distributed, and those already experiencing poverty, ill-health, social exclusion, or insecure housing are likely to be disproportionately affected. Assuming that affluence alone provides protection creates the unfortunate effect of ignoring the most vulnerable, who are most at risk from climate changes.

We are Swedish - we are already doing a lot

Additionally, the views of Swedes on their own contributions to improving the environment are often elevated beyond what facts suggest, in that they believe they are doing a lot and so create a false sense of justification to continue harmful environmental behaviours (Siegle, 2016). This is despite the fact that Sweden is not expected to meet 12 out of 16 national environmental targets by 2030 and has one of the highest per capita carbon footprints in the world (OECD 2025).

The Tech will save us

In Sweden, Technological optimism remains a powerful feature of climate discourse. Electric vehicles, renewable energy, and green innovation are often presented as the pathway to climate resilience (Hulme, 2020). While such developments are important, they can obscure the social consequences of ecological changes by framing climate change primarily as a technical problem. In contrast, scholarship from the Global South has long emphasised its social dimensions and human impacts including food insecurity and inequality (Nässén et al., 2026). Belief that technological solutions will solve the problem may therefore contribute to a slow development of ecosocial work in Sweden, creating a perception that climate change can be solved in the fields of science and technology alone.

This is nothing to do with social work

Western social work, including in Sweden, has historically prioritised casework and the social environment, while often marginalising community work practices and the natural environment (Zapf, 2010). Although there is renewed interest in both community-based approaches and environmental perspectives, these dimensions remain relatively peripheral within Swedish social work education, research, and practice (Chang et al., 2026). As a result, practitioners often operate within organisational structures that emphasise individual assessment rather than collective responses to social problems. Furthermore, the everyday realities of responding to immediate crises and high caseloads can limit the capacity of social workers to engage with threats that have a slower onset. This may create the perspective that the most urgent threat is the immediate one rather than global changes that affect people on a larger scale.

The Swedish Context: Individualism and the Welfare State

The limited visibility of ecosocial work in Sweden can also be understood through the interplay between individualism and the welfare state. Swedish individualism is often characterized by an emphasis on autonomy and independence, which is reinforced by the welfare state in Sweden (Berggren & Trägårdh, 2022).The extensive public services such as healthcare, education, and social protection provided have fostered a high level of trust in state institutions and their capacity to manage societal challenges. This may mean that individuals look to their government for solutions to wider problems such as climate change, yet also view personal responsibility as key to solving it.

Towards a Vision for Ecosocial Work in Sweden

Our suggestion therefore is that if ecosocial work is to develop a stronger presence, it requires a clearer articulation of its purpose within the Swedish context and moreover, a vision of what it is that is more robust in its definition. This calls for increased research discussion and debate. A shared vision in social work can be seen as giving a focus to hope - making it aspirational and achievable - and thereby also bridging individual and collective responsibility and efforts. We propose therefore the following vision as a conceptual prototype of how ecosocial work be promoted and refined to more adequately provide a relevant framework for Swedish social work.

Social work must widen its protective umbrella to include ecological threats. Climate change is not a peripheral environmental issue but a social issue that demands a social work response. Assumptions that Sweden is insulated from climate vulnerability must be challenged, and ecological concerns included within the profession’s mandate. Human well-being is inseparable from the health of the natural world, making socioecological thinking a core competency rather than an optional perspective. Social work education should prepare practitioners for this reality by foregrounding socioecological interdependence and planetary well-being. This is not about burdening social workers with additional responsibilities; it is about equipping the profession to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century and safeguard the well-being of both people and the planet.

We do a disservice to social workers of the future to refrain from equipping them with eco social work knowledge, so this vision needs to become embedded in social work education. We need to move beyond reactive practice, towards an understanding of the flexibility and maleability that will be required under increasing climate instability.

Conclusions

Legislatively Sweden´s adoption of the Social Services Act (Swedish Government, 2025) gives space for preventive social work to be a basis for eco social work to be used in a way that acknowledges the coming ecological changes. Further research is needed to explore cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary forms of ecosocial community work and to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice in ecosocial work. Ultimately however, the push and drive for eco social work to be considered a key player in the social work arena needs to come from social workers and social work researchers themselves. It will take us to recognise the urgency of the climate crisis as being a threat to those we mean to support. The quiet absence of ecosocial work cannot be mistaken for safety; if Swedish social work does not move with the climate crisis, it risks being left behind by it. And with it, the most vulnerable in Sweden.

References

Berggren, H., & Trägårdh, L. (2022). The Swedish theory of love: Individualism and social trust in modern Sweden. University of Washington Press.

Chang, E., Sjöberg, S., Turunen, P., & Rambaree, K. (2026). A call for ecosocial community work: Challenges and possibilities for ecosocial work in local neighbourhoods in Sweden. European Journal of Social Work, 29(2), 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2025.2510340

Forbes, R. (2025, April 18). On the front lines of climate and care: How social work is evolving in an ecosystem. University of Denver.

Hulme, M. (2020). One Earth, many futures, no destination. One Earth, 2, 309–311.

Kaffrell-Lindahl, A. (2025). Social work and climate change: The split between the personal and the professional. Nordic Social Work Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2025.2499603

Kang, J., Park, T. K., Yi, E. H. G., & Peper, M. (2025). Ecosocial work and social work education: A scoping review of literature on teaching and curriculum development in ecosocial work. Social Work Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2025.2555576

Munro, G. D., Edun, J. F., & Mehiel, N. (2025). Climate privilege: Defensive disbelief in climate change science. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 106, 102714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102714

Nässén, N., Sjöberg, S., Colding, J., & Lilja, M. (2026). Motives for collective climate action–Community work promoting community climate commons. International Social Work, 00208728261421016.

OECD (2025), OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Sweden 2025, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/91dcc109-en.

Ramsay, S., & Boddy, J. (2017). Environmental social work: A concept analysis. British Journal of Social Work, 47(1), 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw078

Rost, S. (2026). Climate resilience guide for social workers. Springer Nature Switzerland.

Siegle, L. (2016, November 27). The ethical guide to the not-so green Swedes. The Guardian.

Stamm, I., Ranta-Tyrkkö, S., Matthies, A.-L., & Närhi, K. (2023). The ecosocial paradigm in social work. In M. Elo, J. Hytönen, S. Karkulehto, T. Kortetmäki, J. S. Kotiaho, M. Puurtinen, & M. Salo (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on planetary well-being (pp. 177–188). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003334002-18

Stockholm University. (n.d.). Welfare state responses to social risks in times of climate change. https://www.su.se/english/research/research-catalogue/research-projects/1/welfare-state-responses-to-social-risks-in-times-of-climate-change

Swedish Government. (2025). En förebyggande socialtjänstlag – för ökade rättigheter, skyldigheter och möjligheter (Prop. 2024/25:89). https://www.regeringen.se/

Zapf, M. K. (2010). Social work and the environment: Understanding people and place. Critical Social Work, 11(3), 30–46.