Introduction
The role of social work emerges as a critical impact in addressing the discourse related to sustainability and environmental justice. According to Bexell et al. (2019), social work can help develop sustainable solutions that address social issues like social injustice, poverty and inequality. Also, Friedman and Rosen (2020) and Welsh (2020) consider that social work can promote new ways that are considerate to the ecosystem, whereby the impact of human activities on the environment is minimised. The paper aims to address the different ways a social worker can lead to the sustainability of the current society. The report will critically analyse the contrast between neoliberal and eco-social paradigms. Colnar, Dimovski, and Bogataj (2019) believe these perspectives impact economic and social progress differently. The paper will also include a personal view of micro-level actions to progress the well-being of a person I interacted with. Another significant area to address is my professional capabilities and experiences relevant to addressing sustainability in contemporary society.
Neoliberal Paradigm
The dominant social paradigm shapes the interaction between society and the environment, which determines a society’s social, political, economic and environmental perspectives. One of the most prevalent social paradigms is normalisation ideology, first introduced into the UK in the 1980s by the Margret Thatcher administration in the 1980s Lencucha and Thow (2019). Lencucha and Thow (2019) report that neoliberalism is becoming dominant in contemporary society. According to neologisation, it is a social policy model that includes the privatisation of public parastatals, capitalism, and deregulating international markets. Therefore, the state’s role in neoliberalism is to protect private property to achieve a free market. Thus, the government moves away from its traditional duty to provide social amenities like environmental regulation, protection against workplace racism, and achieving equitable social welfare services. Mikelatou and Arvanitis (2023) summarise neoliberalism as the claim that society thrives best with minimal government regulation of industrial activities, which justifies weakening environmental pollution.
Neoliberalism doctrine claims that the privatisation of the economy leads to an ever-growing economic system regardless of the environmental risks. Hatzisavvidou (2021)adds that research emphasises that economic growth depends on the economic system’s long-term viability. Also, Matveev (2020) criticises the neolibarism concept by commenting that the approach is saturated with racism. It conveys the racial discrimination and racial equality behind the free market ideology. Similarly, Lencucha and Thow (2019) h report that although neoliberalism may be harmful to the people, it is precisely more catastrophic to the racial minorities who may not have directly benefitted from the past environmental protection policies. For example, Johnson and Tsuji (2022) claim that the relocation of racial marginalisation to the private sphere liberates the government from its social role of intervening and correcting the historical racial injustices against minority races.
Eco-social paradigms
Eco-social paradigms are one of the emerging alternatives to neoliberalism in responding to sustainability. Eco-social focuses on understanding the link between the social and ecological realms in addressing sustainable practices (Furstenau et al., 2020), ascribed to increasing importance in the current decade (Sabato et al., 2022). Sabato et al. (2022) mention that the different eco-social ideologies within social work call for sustainability practices related to social, economic, and ecological issues. A holistic approach to the eco-social paradigm is the most utilised perspective, and it considers that social, economic and environmental factors are interdependent. Therefore, balancing the three elements is essential for long-term sustainability goals. Matveev (2020) argues that a holistic approach ensures that the impact of the current actions will affect the sustainability of the future generation, which calls for the well-being of human society and the environment. However, critics of this paradigm, like Matveev (2020), argue that the social, economic, and ecological spheres might have conflicting interests and priorities, making them challenging to implement. In summary, the ecosocial approach goes beyond traditional social ethics; therefore, it can help social workers reconsider their duty towards the well-being of the whole ecosystem.
Recognising intrinsic linkages between society and the environment is a critical concept towards the eco-social paradigm. According to Sabato et al. (2022), the ideology considers that social, economic, and environmental concerns should not be treated as separate entities because one’s health depends on the other. Also, Sabato et al. (2022) report that humans’ excessive need for materials leads to economic imprints that exceed the earth’s carrying capacity, hence a need for a sustainable approach. Therefore, extreme pressure on economic progress while ignoring the social system and the environment would lead to short-term economic profit and long-term sustainability issues related to the depletion of resources. In other words, the promotion of ecological sustainability would have a positive impact on the social sphere and vice versa. However, Fischer et al. (2021) provide a different perspective on intrinsic linkages by illustrating a case of initiatives promoting energy sustainability among low-income households that lead to social unsustainability. Matveev (2020) argues that the social sphere must balance ecological initiatives to ensure that marginalised groups are protected against the social sustainability issues created by dominant groups and nations.
Contrast between Neoliberalism and Ecosocial paradigm
Neoliberalism is a political and economic paradigm prioritising free markets, deregulation, and privatisation. Reyers and Selig (2020) mention that neoliberalism leads to economic prosperity; it neglects the social and environmental costs critical to sustainability. Reyers and Selig (2020) add that overemphasising profit maximisation can cause social inequalities, pollution and overexploitation of natural resources. On the other hand, The eco-social ideology integrates ecological and social considerations by emphasising how each sphere’s well-being depends on the other. Also, the neoliberal approach assumes that market mechanisms alone can address social and environmental issues. Hence focusing on short-term profits and shareholder value. The focus on the free market could neglect the investment, leading to long-term social and climatic change stability. However, the eco-social approach aims to create long-term stability in the social and ecological system. Therefore, the eco-social process is an alternative to neoliberalism because they consider human beings part of nature, and their actions affect environmental sustainability.
Role of nature to health and well-being, particularly for marginalised communities and individuals
In the contemporary world, sustainability requires a practical understanding of human-nature relationships. According to Wang and Altanbulag (2022), nature is a space for development where humans survive through flourishing socially and economically. Wang and Altanbulag (2022) add that nature offers medical solutions like anti-biotics and other raw materials like water, oils and timber. However, the interaction between nature and the marginalised group in society is considered complex and multifaceted, as Bohnenberger (2023) mentioned. According to Bohnenberger (2023), marginalised people are the most dependent on nature and vulnerable to unhealthy human-nature relationships. Hendricks and Van Zandt (2021) illustrate this by reporting that a shift to ecological sustainability is accompanied by social unsustainability among marginalised groups because they need more technological and economic resources to implement the new practices. According to Krings and Copic (2021), the dominant group in society create the risks associated with climate change, while the marginalised people are most vulnerable to the outcomes. Similarly, Polk and Diver (2020) report that man-marginalised groups depend on nature. Hence, a clean environment would improve their sustenance through agriculture, fishing and access to clean water. Therefore, unsustainable practices like pollution threaten these resources, harming human-nature relationships.
Working towards a common good
There are significant areas where social workers can utilise the understanding of neoliberalism and the eco-social paradigm to create a common ground for environmental justice. Bohnenberger (2023) reports that social workers can address the issue of environmental injustice by advocating for the inclusion of marginalised groups in sustainability decision-making. In other words, the marginalised groups could address the historical inequities that make them more vulnerable to climate change. Dukelow (2022) argues that social workers can achieve the voicing of marginalised groups by building coalitions and networks that amplify their concerns, limiting the neoliberalism perspectives. Also, social workers can contribute to environmental justice by ensuring that marginalised communities have equitable access to resources and are protected from environmental hazards. Marginalised communities in Europe and America live and work in areas affected by climate areas prone to floods and polluted regions. Therefore, advocating for access to clean air, water, and a healthy environment would lead to a more sustainable future.
How would you contribute as social worker to environmental justice?
As a social worker, I have a critical role in empowering marginalised groups towards environmental justice. I have a personal experience of working with the family of a high-secure unit mental patient. I recognised that I needed to address broader ecological factors (Stamm, 2023) that affect the mental health of the marginalised patient and ensure that the family has the necessary resources to achieve an efficient recovery. My initial micro-level action was to assess the patients’ and families’ living conditions to identify any vulnerabilities (Chakraborty et al., 2020). I determined that the physical environment included limited exposure to natural sunlight, lack of green spaces, and unclean air. According to
Barnes (2019) states that mental health patients experience exacerbated symptoms when their natural surroundings include stressors. In short, the mental health patient was exposed to
environmental injustices that limited the chances of effective recovery. (Goldsmith and Bell, 2022). The other micro-level action was to engage the community support system for the patient. According to Goldsmith and Bell (2022), collecting the views and experiences of the marginalised community is essential in identifying coping strategies to address environmental injustices. Therefore, the community’s opinions would be used to manage health disparity. As part of the advocacy, I would present the environmental injustice in the agency groups responsible for developing policies and coordinating services to improve the quality of life in the marginalised community.
Moreover, I would use the eco-social model as the guiding approach to the patients ‘ and families’ living conditions. Therefore, the human-nature relationship in this community has been ruined by poor environmental conditions that limit their economic well-being. In other words, the social, economic, and ecological factors are interdependent, and any deprivation would lead to harmful human-nature relationships (Chakraborty et al., 2020). Also, I will consider the spread of the neoliberalism perspective as a critical promoter of environmental injustice in the community. The marginalised groups may settle in areas vulnerable to pollution due to increased focus on the free market and privatisation to improve the national economy. Ensuring the marginalised community has equal access to natural resources like clean air and water would lead to environmental justice and a sustainable future (Karji et al. 2019).
What professional capabilities have you developed towards contributing to Sustainability in contemporary society?
My learning experience in this module reflects my team-project contribution to Wisberch, UK, which, according to Matveev (2020), is one of the most deprived regions in the UK with hostile measures of health, income, education, employment, and housing services. Therefore, I had an opportunity to engage my skills and professionalism with deprived individuals in a participatory well. Thus, my experience with the community allowed me to apply approaches related to surveys, focus groups, and engagement in community meetings. I had an opportunity to witness the community voice their concerns about the region’s deprivation.
Responding to the deprivation of the Wisbech community provided insight into the multiple knowledge and skills related to problem-solving and positivity in social change. According to Friedman and Rosen (2020), social workers require knowledge of theoretical approaches to improve their understanding of a social phenomenon. For example, the eco-social model explained the interrelationship of social, economic, and environmental factors that made the Wisbech people vulnerable to ecological injustices. Similarly, the neoliberalism paradigm gave insight into how the introduction of realism in the UK in the 1980s (Cook et al., 2021) led to a state emphasis on economic progress over social and environmental stability. Therefore, the knowledge of the paradigms was a critical asset in identifying the solutions that will lead to a positive change in the Wisberch society.
One crucial area that I am eager to explore more is the intersectionality of environmental injustices. The area is attractive because it explains how ecological problems affect different communities based on racial, geographical, social, and economic status. The area will also help me understand how historical injustices against marginalised groups have a valuable insight into their environmental injustices in contemporary society (Welsh, 2020). Also, I hope to stay updated on the current ecological challenges and the impact of technological expansion on sustainable practices within marginalised communities.
Conclusion
Social workers are critical in utilising different theoretical models in addressing sustainability and environmental injustices. The neoliberalism paradigm emphasises the free market, capitalism, and privatisation over the ecological aspects. On the other hand, the eco-social approach considers the social, economic, and physical environment interdependent. The human-nature relationship is essential because nature is the sphere humans utilise to socially and economically thrive. Therefore, any damage to the heart would lead to an unhealthy relationship. Working towards a common goal in environmental injustice can include addressing the concerns and offering the needed resources for marginalised societies. The team project on Wilberch provided an opportunity to learn and apply critical skills and knowledge in addressing issues related to environmental injustices. In future, I want to learn more about the environmental intersection with other factors like race, technology, and economic status causing ecological injustices.
References
Amrutha, V.N. and Geetha, S.N., 2020. A systematic review on green human resource management: Implications for social sustainability. Journal of Cleaner production, 247, p.119131.
Barnes, J.H., Chatterton, T.J. and Longhurst, J.W., 2019. Emissions vs exposure: Increasing injustice from road traffic-related air pollution in the United Kingdom. Transportation research part D: transport and environment, 73, pp.56-66.
Bexell, S.M., Decker Sparks, J.L., Tejada, J. and Rechkemmer, A., 2019. An analysis of inclusion gaps in sustainable development themes: Findings from a review of recent social work literature. International Social Work, 62(2), pp.864-876.
Bohnenberger, K., 2023. Peaks and gaps in Eco-Social policy and sustainable welfare: A systematic literature map of the research landscape. European Journal of Social Security, p.13882627231214546.
Carrosio, G. and De Vidovich, L., 2023. Towards eco-social policies to tackle the socio-ecological crisis: energy poverty as an interface between welfare and environment. Environmental Sociology, 9(3), pp.243-256.
Chakraborty, L., Rus, H., Henstra, D., Thistlethwaite, J. and Scott, D., 2020. A place-based socioeconomic status index: Measuring social vulnerability to flood hazards in the context of environmental justice. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 43, p.101394.
Colnar, S., Dimovski, V. and Bogataj, D., 2019. Knowledge management and the sustainable development of social work. Sustainability, 11(22), p.6374.
Cook, Q., Argenio, K. and Lovinsky-Desir, S., 2021. The impact of environmental injustice and social determinants of health on the role of air pollution in asthma and allergic disease in the United States. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 148(5), pp.1089-1101.
Dukelow, F., 2022. What Role for Activation in Eco-Social Policy?. Social Policy and Society, 21(3), pp.496-507.
Fischer, J., Riechers, M., Loos, J., Martin-Lopez, B. and Temperton, V.M., 2021. Making the UN decade on ecosystem restoration a social-ecological endeavour. Trends in ecology & evolution, 36(1), pp.20-28.
Friedman, R. and Rosen, G., 2020. The face of affordable housing in a neoliberal paradigm. Urban Studies, 57(5), pp.959-975.
Furstenau, L.B., Sott, M.K., Kipper, L.M., Machado, E.L., Lopez-Robles, J.R., Dohan, M.S., Cobo, M.J., Zahid, A., Abbasi, Q.H. and Imran, M.A., 2020. Link between sustainability and industry 4.0: trends, challenges and new perspectives. Ieee Access, 8, pp.140079-140096.
Goldsmith, L. and Bell, M.L., 2022. Queering environmental justice: unequal environmental health burden on the LGBTQ+ community. American Journal of Public Health, 112(1), pp.79-87.
Hatzisavvidou, S., 2021. Inventing the environmental state: neoliberal common sense and the limits to transformation. In The Political Prospects of a Sustainability Transformation (pp. 96-114). Routledge.
Hendricks, M.D. and Van Zandt, S., 2021. Unequal protection revisited: Planning for environmental justice, hazard vulnerability, and critical infrastructure in communities of color. Environmental justice, 14(2), pp.87-97.
Johnson, B. and Tsuji, R., 2022. Environmental Justice and Children’s Well-Being. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Critical Perspectives on Mental Health, pp.1-7.
Karji, A., Woldesenbet, A., Khanzadi, M. and Tafazzoli, M., 2019. Assessment of social sustainability indicators in mass housing construction: a case study of Mehr housing project. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, p.101697.
Khan, J., Hildingsson, R. and Garting, L., 2020. Sustainable welfare in Swedish cities: Challenges of eco-social integration in urban sustainability governance. Sustainability, 12(1), p.383.
Krings, A. and Copic, C., 2021. Environmental justice organising in a gentrifying community: Navigating dilemmas of representation, issue selection, and recruitment. Families in Society, 102(2), pp.154-166.
Lencucha, R. and Thow, A.M., 2019. How neoliberalism is shaping the supply of unhealthy commodities and what this means for NCD prevention. International journal of health policy and management, 8(9), p.514.
Matveev, I., 2020. State, capital, and the transformation of the neoliberal policy paradigm in Putin’s Russia. In The Global Rise of Authoritarianism in the 21st Century (pp. 33-50). Routledge.
Mikelatou, A. and Arvanitis, E., 2023. Pluralistic and equitable education in the neoliberal era: paradoxes and contradictions. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 27(14), pp.1611-1626.
Polk, E. and Diver, S., 2020. Situating the scientist: creating inclusive science communication through equity framing and environmental justice. Frontiers in Communication, 5, p.6.
Reyers, B. and Selig, E.R., 2020. Global targets that reveal the social–ecological interdependencies of sustainable development. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 4(8), pp.1011-1019.
Sabato, S., Mandelli, M. and Jessoula, M., 2022. Towards an EU eco-social agenda? From Europe 2020 to the European Green Deal. Towards Sustainable Welfare States in Europe, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.199-219.
Stamm, I., 2023. Ecosocial work and services for unemployed people: the challenge to integrate environmental and social sustainability. Nordic Social Work Research, 13(1), pp.134-147.
Wang, P. and Altanbulag, A., 2022. A concern for eco-social sustainability: Background, concept, values, and perspectives of eco-social work. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), p.2093035.
Welsh, J., 2020. Struggling beyond the paradigm of Neoliberalism. Thesis Eleven, 158(1), pp.58-80.
write