Green Social Work as a Framework for Socio-Environmental Transformation: A Systematic Review

Abstract

The findings of this Systematic Review suggest that Green Social Work (GSW) is gaining momentum as a framework that integrates environmental sustainability with social and relational justice. In the context of climate emergencies and deepening socio-environmental inequalities, GSW proposes a transformative vision for professional practice and highlights the need to rethink the role of social work in addressing ecological challenges. This article presents a systematic review of academic literature aimed at analyzing the conceptual development, areas of application, and methodological characteristics of GSW. Fifteen peer-reviewed articles were selected through a structured search in five international databases, applying inclusion criteria that required explicit reference to the GSW framework. The review examines how GSW has been implemented in practice, education, community intervention, and policy design. The findings point to emerging patterns in the application of GSW across contexts of environmental vulnerability, such as disaster recovery, rural development, and climate justice, as well as its incorporation into professional training and ethical codes. However, the review also reveals the absence of shared operational definitions and the predominance of qualitative, exploratory studies with limited generalizability. Overall, GSW offers a valuable pathway for strengthening the contribution of social work to ecological and social challenges. Its integration into education, research, and policy can enhance professional responses to complex crises, although clearer operational frameworks and more robust empirical studies are needed to consolidate GSW as a key tool for socio-environmental transformation.

1. Introduction

Deforestation, droughts, and floods are among the main consequences that the environmental crisis is causing in ecosystems. This environmental impact disproportionately affects people in situations of heightened vulnerability. Social vulnerability is defined as the predisposition of an individual or group to suffer harm from external threats, including a lack of adaptive capacity (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014). Issues such as climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, and the exploitation of natural resources have generated new forms of socio-environmental inequality and vulnerability for disadvantaged populations (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2023). These impacts go beyond the physical phenomena of climate change but also manifest within the social, economic, and historical structures that shape people’s capacity to cope with risks.

Consistent with this perspective, environmental sociology has long demonstrated that environmental degradation, vulnerability, and risk emerge from social structures, political economy, and unequal distributions of power rather than from purely biophysical dynamics. Classic work in the field challenged human-exemptionalist assumptions and argued for a sociological perspective that recognizes the dependence of social systems on ecological limits and the feedback effects of environmental change on social inequality (Dunlap and Catton 1979). Subsequent contributions emphasized that environmental problems are embedded within broader patterns of production, consumption, governance, and stratification—central dimensions of the political-economy tradition in environmental sociology (Buttel 1987). These insights align closely with Green Social Work, which interprets socio-environmental crises as expressions of structural inequality and positions social work practice at the intersection of community well-being, ecological sustainability, and environmental justice.

From a social perspective, the main adverse effects include rising inequality and poverty, forced migration, deterioration of public health, conflict and social tension, as well as the loss of cultural identity (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2023). The IPCC thus warns that climate change is not only an environmental problem but also deepens social divides and disproportionately affects those with fewer resources. In fact, traditionally marginalized groups such as older adults, children, and persons with disabilities tend to be more severely impacted by climate-related events due to structural inequalities (Birkmann et al. 2022). In addition to these groups, research in environmental justice consistently shows that Indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, migrants, and racialized communities face disproportionately higher exposure to environmental hazards and are structurally constrained in their capacity to adapt to climate-related risks (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2023). These populations experience multiple and overlapping forms of disadvantage, including historical dispossession, spatial segregation, and political underrepresentation, that amplify their vulnerability to environmental crises. Recognizing this broader set of marginalized groups is essential for understanding the socio-environmental inequalities that GSW aims to address.

In rural contexts, the impacts on agricultural livelihoods can be especially severe. A study in Bangladesh found that farming families in flood-prone areas experienced significant income losses due to declines in rice yields (Alamgir et al. 2021). In many regions, climate variability—such as droughts, irregular rainfall, or floods—not only reduces agricultural production but also drives up food prices, affecting the well-being of entire communities (Otto et al. 2017). Measurement systems such as the World Risk Index and the INFORM Index also indicate that mortality linked to floods, droughts, and storms is significantly higher in the most vulnerable countries (Birkmann et al. 2022).

The link between armed conflict and climate change has also been examined through the “vicious cycle” connecting vulnerability, conflict, and climate change. According to Buhaug and von Uexkull (2021), many of the conditions that generate climate vulnerability also increase the risk of armed conflict. In turn, conflict worsens these conditions by destroying infrastructure, forcing displacement, and leading to forced migration, thereby reinforcing a difficult-to-break cycle.

Beyond material and social implications, climate change also affects the cultures of specific populations. The loss of ancestral lands, forced displacement, or the destruction of spiritually significant natural landscapes can generate distress, loss of identity, and emotional suffering (Otto et al. 2017).

Social work has historically engaged with people in vulnerable situations and disadvantaged groups (such as children, older adults, and persons with disabilities). However, the environmental dimension has received limited attention. Richmond (1922), a pioneer in direct intervention with individuals in social work, already acknowledged the importance of understanding the immediate environment (home, school, community, etc.) as key to understanding people’s social circumstances. According to Pardeck (1988), this approach considers that individual problems cannot be understood or addressed in isolation from their physical and social environment. While this initially focused on social factors such as poverty, this perspective laid the groundwork for incorporating the natural and physical environment as key dimensions of human well-being. Along these lines, Jarvis (2013) suggests that, to maintain its relevance and commitment to social justice, social work must integrate the environmental dimension into Richmond’s framework and update it in response to the challenges posed by climate change. In a similar vein, some authors such as Matthies et al. (2001) argue that social work should broaden its scope to include ecological perspectives, emphasizing the interconnections between human well-being, social systems, and the natural environment.

In this regard, the systems model has been fundamental in the development of social work, emphasizing the importance of the environment in the lives of individuals, groups, and communities (Viscarret Garro 2007). Based on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory, it holds that interactions between individuals and their environment are essential to understanding well-being. This approach promotes a holistic understanding of social issues, in which environmental degradation can be seen as a factor that exacerbates pre-existing inequalities and vulnerabilities in society (Dominelli 2018). However, this model has not adequately accounted for the impacts of climate change or environmental degradation on human well-being.

Over time, several concepts have emerged that integrate environmental concerns into social work practice, such as ecological social work, ecofeminist social work, ecospiritual social work, environmental social work, sustainable social work, and green social work (Ramsay and Boddy 2017). These approaches differ in their emphasis on specific aspects, such as the recognition of Indigenous and spiritual knowledge, criticism of anthropocentrism and advocacy for an ecocentric perspective, or the transformation of economic and political systems.

Although the literature offers multiple terms linking social work with environmental issues, this review focuses on Green Social Work (GSW), as it represents one of the most comprehensive approaches within contemporary social work frameworks in relation to the ecological crisis. This approach not only coherently integrates the principles of social and environmental justice but also provides a practical intervention model applicable in diverse contexts such as climate emergency management, community work, or policy advocacy. It also includes established best practices, professional action guidelines, and concrete tools that enable social workers to respond proactively to the challenges of climate change and environmental degradation, while maintaining a focus on human rights and social equity (Dominelli 2012).

Dominelli (2012) developed the GSW model with the aim of reformulating social work practice to address the ecological and social crisis in an integrated manner. This model is based on the premise that environmental degradation affects both ecosystems and community well-being, social justice, and human rights; proposing a necessarily transdisciplinary action framework that incorporates various disciplines at both the practical and theoretical levels. It must also be evidence-based and grounded in a participatory process between practice and research. Furthermore, it should aim to foster social change that enables transformation of the socioeconomic system and the co-production of plans that enhance community resilience in the face of natural disasters and other crises.

Following this theoretical model, Dominelli (2018) outlines a series of steps to implement GSW. The practical model begins with a risk assessment, identifying and analyzing the factors that threaten the well-being of individuals, groups, or communities. Once the risks are identified, a mitigation planning phase follows, in which strategies are designed to reduce or eliminate risks. This is followed by an action plan with preventive measures and strategies to strengthen individual and community resilience. Subsequently, the action plan is implemented, and responses to unforeseen impacts are carried out, along with an evaluation of the plan to allow for necessary adjustments. This model emphasizes the importance of comprehensive, transdisciplinary planning, responding to the changing needs of communities, promoting active participation, and developing resilient strategies.

GSW represents an opportunity for professionals to respond actively to the environmental crisis and its consequences for the well-being of individuals, groups, and communities. However, for this approach to be more than a theoretical framework for practice development, it is essential to examine and analyze what is currently being done in social work, both in direct intervention with vulnerable communities, in the production of knowledge and research, and in the training of future professionals. At a time when the effects of the environmental crisis are increasingly evident, it is crucial to review what is being implemented in social work and propose improvements to professional practice from the perspective of GSW. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current state of GSW, analyzing experiences, methodologies, intervention frameworks, and emerging lines of research. Specifically, the objectives of this research are: to assess the actual presence of GSW within the field of social work; to examine whether a clear operational definition of GSW exists; to identify the contexts in which GSW is implemented, in particular those of particular vulnerability; to analyze the extent to which GSW is included in social work education and training; to review the empirical development achieved so far regarding GSW; and to identify the limitations of current research and practice in GSW.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al. 2021). The completed PRISMA checklist is available in the Supplementary Materials, and the study selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1). The review was not prospectively registered in PROSPERO or any other database, and no formal protocol was prepared prior to conducting the review. To mitigate potential risks associated with the absence of preregistration, such as post hoc adjustments to inclusion criteria, the review employed predefined eligibility criteria, independent screening by four reviewers, third-party adjudication, and full transparency regarding excluded studies (Supplementary Table S1).

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) peer-reviewed empirical studies that explicitly referred to the “Green Social Work” (GSW) framework; (2) published in English; (3) available in full-text open access; and (4) with no restriction on publication date. Restricting the sample to English and open-access publications ensured transparency and replicability but may have reduced epistemic and geographical diversity; this is acknowledged as a limitation and future reviews should broaden linguistic and access criteria.

The exclusion criteria were: (1) review articles or book chapters; (2) documents without full-text access; (3) publications in languages other than English; and (4) studies addressing social work and the environment that did not explicitly employ the GSW framework.

2.2. Search Strategy and Information Sources

An exhaustive search was conducted across five international databases: Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, and Redalyc, between 18 October and 25 October 2024. Additionally, manual searches were carried out in the reference lists of the included studies and in specialized journals (e.g., International Social Work, British Journal of Social Work). The last search update was performed on 25 October 2024.

The main search string was: “green social work” OR (“green” AND “social work”).

This string was adapted to the syntax of each database without altering the main keywords. Filters applied included language (English) and document type (article). Table 1 presents the search strings used for each database.

Table 1. Search terms/combination.

Databases	Search String
Web of Science (WOS)	TITLE = (“green social work”) AND Language = (English) AND document types = (Article).
Scopus	TITLE-ABS-KEY (“green social work”) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)).
ScienceDirect	Title: green AND social AND work. (Article type: Research articles; Languages: English).
ProQuest	TI (“green social work”) AND Full Text (Yes) AND PEER (Yes)
Redalyc	“Green social work”, Articles, Languages: English

2.3. Study Selection Process

The initial search yielded 47 records: WOS (n = 25), Scopus (n = 10), ProQuest (n = 8), ScienceDirect (n = 2), and Redalyc (n = 2). After removing 14 duplicates, 33 titles and abstracts were screened.

Screening was performed independently by four reviewers. An agreement level of ≥75% (3 out of 4 reviewers) was required; in case of a tie, a fifth reviewer made the final decision. Abstract screening led to the exclusion of three records. Of the remaining 30, 12 were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria (e.g., lack of explicit reference to GSW, book chapter, or non-open-access publication). A detailed list of excluded studies and the reason for exclusion is provided in Supplementary Table S1. The final sample consisted of 15 articles.

The overall selection process is summarized in Figure 1 (PRISMA flow diagram).

2.4. Data Extraction and Coding

Data were extracted independently by two reviewers using a standardized extraction form. The information extracted included: Author, Year, Country, Journal, Topics Addressed, Emphasis, Key Authors, Definitions, Fields of Application, Variables Associated with GSW, Objectives, Participants, Instruments, Type of Analysis, Results, and Limitations. In case of discrepancies, a third reviewer verified and resolved the differences by consensus.

The following primary outcomes were collected: definitions of GSW, fields of application (education, community intervention, post-disaster recovery, policy), methodological approaches, reported impacts, participants, instruments, analytical methods, and limitations. Secondary outcomes included: country of study, year of publication, and journal type. When specific information was unclear (e.g., missing funding statement), it was coded as “not applicable” (NA).

2.5. Quality Appraisal and Risk of Bias Assessment

Given that the included studies featured both qualitative and quantitative designs, two methodological appraisal tools developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) were applied, selected according to the nature of each study.

For qualitative studies, the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research (Lockwood et al. 2015) was used. This tool assesses the congruence between the philosophical perspective, methodological design, and data analysis and interpretation procedures. It includes ten items that evaluate aspects such as methodological coherence, adequacy in representing participants’ voices, researcher reflexivity, and evidence of ethical approval.

For quantitative studies, specifically analytical cross-sectional designs, the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies (Moola et al. 2020) was employed. This checklist comprises eight items focusing on internal and external validity, clarity of inclusion criteria, description of context and sample, identification of confounding factors, and adequacy of statistical analyses.

The results of the appraisal are presented in Table 2 and Table 3. Table 2 corresponds to the qualitative studies assessed using the instrument by Lockwood et al. (2015), whereas Table 3 refers to the quantitative studies evaluated using the checklist by Moola et al. (2020). Both tables indicate the percentage of agreement obtained for each item and study.

Table 2. JBI quality assessment of qualitative studies.

Studies	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Average Degree of Agreement
Androff et al. (2017)	100	100	100	100	100	100	NO	NO	NO	100	70%
Bowles et al. (2016)	100	100	75	100	100	100	NO	NA	NA	100	84.4%
Breen et al. (2023)	100	100	100	100	100	100	NO	75	NO	100	77.5%
Ku and Dominelli (2018)	100	100	100	100	100	100	50	100	100	100	95%
Castañeda-Meneses (2024)	100	100	100	100	100	100	NO	NA	NO	100	77.7%
Dominelli and Ku (2017)	100	100	NA	NA	100	100	NO	100	NO	100	75%
Dominelli (2013)	100	100	100	NA	NA	100	NO	NA	NO	100	71.4%
Dominelli (2014)	100	100	100	100	100	100	NO	100	NO	100	80%
Dominelli (2020)	100	100	100	100	100	100	NO	NO	NA	100	77.7%
Fraser et al. (2021)	100	100	NA	NA	NA	100	NO	NA	100	100	83.3%
Wu and Greig (2022)	100	100	100	100	100	100	NO	100	NO	100	80%

1: Is there congruity between the stated philosophical perspective and the research methodology?; 2: Is there congruity between the research methodology and the research question or objectives?; 3: Is there congruity between the research methodology and the methods used to collect data?; 4: Is there congruity between the research methodology and the representation and analysis of data?; 5: Is there congruity between the research methodology and the interpretation of results?; 6: Is there a statement locating the researcher culturally or theoretically?; 7: Is the influence of the researcher on the research, and vice-versa, addressed?; 8: Are participants, and their voices, adequately represented?; 9: Is the research ethical according to current criteria or, for recent studies, and is there evidence of ethical approval by an appropriate body?; 10: Do the conclusions drawn in the research report flow from the analysis, or interpretation, of the data? NO = criterion not met; NA: Not Applicable.

Table 3. JBI quality assessment of quantitative studies.

Studies	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Average Degree of Agreement
Downey et al. (2023)	100	100	100	100	NO	NO	100	100	75%
Marlow and van Rooyen (2001)	100	100	100	100	75	NO	NO	100	71.9%
Muchacha and Mushunje (2019)	100	100	NA	100	NO	NO	100	100	71.4%
Shaw (2011)	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100%

1: Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?; 2: Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?; 3: Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?; 4: Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition?; 5: Were confounding factors identified?; 6: Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?; 7: Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?; 8: Was appropriate statistical analysis used? NO = criterion not met; NA: Not Applicable.

The average inter-rater agreement in the risk of bias assessment was above 70% in all cases, suggesting adequate reliability in the coding and methodological quality appraisal of the included studies.

2.6. Synthesis of Results

All reported findings were extracted and thematically categorized according to the areas of application and study objectives (see Section 2.4).

Given the heterogeneity of contexts, participants, and research designs, a narrative synthesis was conducted, complemented by descriptive tables that organize the findings based on study characteristics, key results, and identified limitations. Finally, when quantitative data were available, descriptive statistics and effect size estimates reported by the authors were included.

3. Results

The documentary review identified a set of fifteen articles that address GSW from different geographical, thematic and methodological perspectives (Table 4). The selected studies come from well-established academic journals in the field of social work, such as International Social Work, British Journal of Social Work, Journal of Social Work, Social Sciences, Critical & Radical Social Work, among others. This diversity of sources reflects the growing interest in integrating environmental justice and sustainability into academic and professional social work agendas.

Table 4. Description of selected articles for the GSW review.

Author and Year	Country	Journal	Topics Addressed	Emphasis
Androff et al. (2017)	USA	International Social Work	Food insecurity, access to green spaces, activism against open-pit mining.	Useful for developing macro-level competencies in social work students, especially in community-based practice.
Bowles et al. (2016)	Australia	International Social Work	Ethical codes and sustainability	Development of international ethical codes
Breen et al. (2023)	Canada	Social Sciences	Green social work in education, environmental justice	Education and professionalization in green social work
Ku and Dominelli (2018)	China	British Journal of Social Work	Community reconstruction, spatial justice, local participation	Social work in disasters and spatial justice Relevant for designing inclusive post-disaster reconstruction policies and for training social workers in collaborative practices
Castañeda-Meneses (2024)	Chile	Prospectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social e intervención social	Environmental crisis, environmental justice, related social issues (displacement, heat stress, job loss)	Professional. Useful for designing environmental intervention models in social work, especially in contexts of high environmental vulnerability
Dominelli and Ku (2017)	United Kingdom and China	China Journal of Social Work	Impact of disasters, rural-to-urban migration, environmental justice, environmental degradation	Useful for training social workers in sustainable approaches and for integrating environmental justice into social work practice
Dominelli (2013)	United Kingdom	International Journal of Social Welfare	Environmental justice, greening of the profession, interdependent world, climate change, disasters	Training social work professionals for disaster intervention
Dominelli (2014)	United Kingdom	International Social Work	Environmental justice, impact of natural disasters on communities, gender inequality, poverty, post-tsunami reconstruction	Useful for professionals and educators in environmental justice
Dominelli (2020)	United Kingdom	International Journal of Social Welfare	Pandemic and resilience in social workers	Technological and professional training in response to pandemics
Downey et al. (2023)	Australia	Social Work Research	Connections and meanings of water	Research
Fraser et al. (2021)	Canada	Critical and Radical Social Work	Speciesism, social justice, ecofeminism, intersectionality, animal agency, structural oppression, climate change	Advocates for the inclusion of non-human animals in GSW, expanding the approach toward a post-anthropocentric and interspecies perspective.
Marlow and van Rooyen (2001)	South Africa	International Social Work	Environmental inclusion	Environmental professional training and activism
Muchacha and Mushunje (2019)	Zimbawe	Critical & Radical Social Work	Gendered impact of climate change, food security, agricultural livelihoods	Rural women and agricultural sustainability. Useful for designing inclusive policies and strengthening agricultural resilience in vulnerable communities
Shaw (2011)	USA	Journal of Social Work	Environmental attitudes, ecological paradigm, sustainability, environmental justice, professional practices, environmental education, NEPS	Empirical study on environmental attitudes among social workers in California. Assesses their alignment with the ecological paradigm
Wu and Greig (2022)	Canada	Healthcare	Essential GSW capacities (adaptability, interdisciplinarity, participation), health and well-being in disaster contexts	Developing key competencies in students to address disasters and climate crises through social work

As shown in Table 4, in geographical terms, the articles cover a wide range of contexts, with contributions from the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, China, Chile, South Africa, and Zimbabwe (Figure 2). This allows us to observe how GSW is adapted and developed in settings with diverse socio-environmental realities. Regarding the topics addressed, the studies highlight issues such as food insecurity, post-disaster reconstruction, spatial justice, rural–urban migration, GSW professionalization, the gendered impact of climate change, the relationship between speciesism and social justice, and resilience in the face of pandemics. These topics reveal the multidimensional and cross-cutting nature of GSW, integrating social, environmental, political, and educational aspects. Taken together, these findings illustrate preliminary patterns suggesting that GSW is being applied mainly in contexts marked by socio-environmental vulnerability, such as disaster recovery, rural communities affected by climate change, and precarious socio-economic settings, although the evidence base remains fragmented and exploratory.

Figure 2. Geographical distribution of studies by country; darker shades represent a higher number of studies.

Regarding the fields of application (Table 5), some articles focus on the development of professional and educational competencies, aiming to incorporate sustainability and environmental justice into the training of future social workers. Others adopt a more intervention-oriented perspective, analyzing the role of social work in community reconstruction after disasters, the creation of environmental ethical codes or the promotion of community participation in contexts of high environmental vulnerability. Additionally, some studies are centered on public policy and intervention models that integrate GSW into territorial planning, environmental justice and agricultural sustainability, particularly in rural communities or populations vulnerable to climate change.

Table 5. Synthesis of approaches, applications and variables associated with GSW in the reviewed literature.

Author & Year	Key Authors	Definitions	Fields of Applications	Variables Associated with GSW
Androff et al. (2017)	Dominelli (2012) Weil (2013) Besthorn (2012) Alinsky (1971) Freire (1970) McKinnon (2008)	GSW is an integrative approach that connects human rights, social justice, and environmental sustainability	It is applied with social work students, addressing topics such as food insecurity, community gardens and environmental activism in contexts of poverty and marginalization	Green social work and educational social work. Relationship between social justice, human rights, and environmental sustainability in community contexts
Bowles et al. (2016)	Alston and Besthorn (2012) Coates and Gray (2012) Dominelli (2012) Peeters (2012) McKinnon (2008)	No specific definition of green social work is provided, but there is emphasis on professional ethical principles and environmental sustainability	It explores how social work codes of ethics in the UK, US, and Australia address environmental sustainability and the natural environment	Integration of the environment into professional ethics, ecological justice, environmental sustainability, the link between human well-being and the natural environment, and ecological social responsibility
Breen et al. (2023)	Dominelli (2012)	Framework that integrates social and environmental justice, adapting research, practice, and policy to respond to disasters and promote resilience among marginalized populations	Education and professional training. It focuses on equipping social workers with the necessary tools to address these types of hazards, tailoring research, practice, and policy to the unique needs of disaster survivors	Green social work, natural disasters, resilience, environmental justice, climate extremes
Ku and Dominelli (2018)	Dominelli (2015) Dominelli (2012) Lefebvre (1996) Harvey (1973) Foucault (1980) Park (1999)	GSW is presented as a participatory and transdisciplinary tool to address disasters and promote spatial justice and sustainability	Community affected by the Sichuan earthquake. Post-disaster community reconstruction. Proposal focused on long-term recovery. Spatial justice (linking social justice, environmental justice, and space). Community development in rural areas	Environmental intervention, social well-being, spatial justice, transdisciplinarity, community participation, sustainability, empowerment, equity, post-disaster resilience, and culturally relevant reconstruction integrated with the physical environment
Castañeda-Meneses (2024)	Dominelli (2012, 2018) Bonilla et al. (2022), ONU (2018) Barthel et al. (2022)	GSW as a professional commitment to the care of the planet, integrating environmental principles, social justice, and interdisciplinary action	Climate crisis in Chile, sacrifice zones, hierarchies of environmental intervention, food security, and climate change	Socio-environmental diagnosis, environmental justice, environmental education, prevention, minimization, mitigation, reparation, compensation
Dominelli and Ku (2017)	Dominelli (2012) Bullard (1990) Brofenbrenner (1979) Schumpeter (1973, 1999)	GSW as a comprehensive approach that integrates social and environmental justice, addressing inequalities and promoting sustainability	Environmental crises in China, sustainable development, environmental and social justice, rural-to-urban migration	Interdependence between communities and their environment, environmental and social justice, sustainable development, resilience
Dominelli (2013)	Bullard (1990) Brundtland (1987) Klinenberg (2015) Laugier and Paperman (2006) Pearce (2012) Pyles (2007) Wisner et al. (2004) Dominelli (2012)	Holistic social practice that integrates social and environmental justice, addresses structural inequalities, and promotes human and ecosystem well-being in contexts of crisis and disaster	Climate change, natural disasters, the impact of neoliberalism on environmental degradation, public health, community resilience, human rights, social mobilization, unsustainable development	Social and environmental inequality, power and economics, human-ecosystem interdependence, pollution and health, social activism, social and ecological responsibility
Dominelli (2014)	IIPP * Dominelli (2012) Bullard (1990)	Environmental justice understood as the equitable redistribution of natural resources, community participation in environmental decision-making, and protection of human and environmental rights of vulnerable communities	Post-disaster reconstruction after the 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka, with a focus on environmental justice, gender equity, poverty, and community participation	Socio-environmental interdependence, resource equity, community empowerment, local participation, structural transformation, environmental sustainability, human and environmental rights
Dominelli (2020)	Dominelli (2012)	Role of social work during the pandemic GSW applies a holistic and transdisciplinary approach, linking public health, environmental justice, and human rights in health crises such as COVID-19	Environmental and zoonotic impact of COVID-19	Pandemic, precariousness, neoliberalism
Downey et al. (2023)	Dominelli (2014)	No specific definition provided	Applied in individual, community, and policy practice	Green social work, climate change related to water resources and well-being
Fraser et al. (2021)	Day (2017) Dominelli (2012, 2013) Alston (2013) Fraser and Taylor (2019)	GSW expanded through ecofeminist intersectionality, including species as an axis of oppression and promoting interspecies alliances	Conceptual application of GSW to disasters, focusing on the inclusion of non-human animals as an oppressed and excluded population in social planning	Speciesism, intersectionality, environmental justice, structural oppression, animal agency, human-animal relationships, post-anthropocentric approach
Marlow and van Rooyen (2001)	Germain and Gitterman (1980) Berger (1995) Gilman (1990) Allaby (1986)	Sustainable development, ecology, and the habitat destruction syndrome	Social work and the environment. Relationship between environmental crisis and social problems	Social work’s distance from environmental issues
Muchacha and Mushunje (2019)	Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014) Chagutah (2010) Dominelli (2012) Alston (2013) Arora-Jonsson (2011)	Impact of climate change on gender and food security GSW as a holistic tool that addresses structural inequalities and promotes community resilience Rural women in Zimbabwe	Rural women in Zimbabwe Impact of climate change on agricultural livelihoods, gender inequality, food security	Gender, food security, resilience, social justice, sustainability, community empowerment, resilience in the face of climate crises
Shaw (2011)	Germain and Gitterman (1987) Berger and Kelly (1993) Besthorn (1997) Coates (2003), Dunlap et al. (2000) NASW (2003) IFSW (2004)	GSW expands the ecological approach and calls for the incorporation of the natural environment into social work practice, policy, and education	Study in California on social workers’ environmental attitudes and their relationship with the ecological paradigm and environmental justice	Person–environment interconnection, ecology, sustainability, environmental justice, environmental attitude, ecological perspective, limits to growth, critique of the dominant paradigm
Wu and Greig (2022)	Dominelli (2012) Karls and O’Keefe (2008) Ferguson (2018) Drolet et al. (2015)	GSW promotes resilience, social and environmental justice, and is integrated into interventions at the micro, mezzo, and macro levels	Training of social work students, post-disaster community development, interdisciplinarity, and climate change	Adaptability, interdisciplinarity, community participation, resilience.

* Internationalising Institutional and Professional Practices (IIPP).

After describing the selected articles, relevant information was extracted to outline an operational definition of GSW, identify its main fields of application and systematize the conceptual variables associated with the reviewed literature, including new theoretical proposals and expansions of the traditional framework (Table 5). The results show that, although there is no single, consensual definition of GSW, the publications generally characterize it as a comprehensive, transdisciplinary, and integrative approach that articulates social justice, human rights and environmental sustainability within professional social work practice—occasionally incorporating post-anthropocentric and intersectional perspectives. This broad characterization coexists with the absence of a single, precise operational definition, reflecting both the richness and the challenges of the field. Such polysemy may be seen as a strength, enabling adaptability across diverse socio-cultural and territorial contexts, but also as a limitation when it comes to building common standards for training, evaluation, or the institutionalization of GSW.

Regarding the fields of application, the studies emphasize the role of GSW in contexts of natural disasters, climate change, post-disaster community reconstruction processes, and environmental crises associated with poverty and socioeconomic precariousness. An emerging area identified relates to the training and professionalization of social workers, with proposals aimed at incorporating environmental sustainability and climate justice into the discipline’s educational programs. There is also growing interest in spatial justice and the strengthening of community resilience, particularly in rural areas and territories affected by extractive industries or intensive industrialization. Furthermore, some studies highlight applications of GSW in ethical disaster planning, including the consideration of non-human species.

The variables that define GSW in the analyzed literature include, recurrently, the interdependence between human and ecosystem well-being, community participation, equity in access to environmental resources, transdisciplinary approaches to intervention, resilience in the face of socio-environmental crises, critique of the dominant social paradigm, post-anthropocentric perspectives, and the agency of non-human beings. The incorporation of a gender perspective is also noteworthy, particularly in rural communities and in those where climate change directly affects food security and local livelihoods. In addition, the findings allow a distinction between attributes that appear consistently across studies (core attributes) and those that are context dependent (peripheral attributes). Core attributes could include: (1) the integration of social and environmental justice; (2) human–ecosystem interdependence; and (3) community participation. Peripheral attributes include post-anthropocentric perspectives, intersectional ecofeminist frameworks, and links to global sustainability agendas. Identifying these core and peripheral elements clarifies what distinguishes GSW from closely related frameworks, such as Environmental Social Work, and reduces ambiguity regarding its operational boundaries.

Overall, the findings reflect the consolidation of an emerging paradigm of intervention that goes beyond traditional social work by integrating the ecological dimension as a central and inseparable component of social practice. This approach promotes a model of development that combines social and environmental justice, with particular attention to populations in situations of socio-environmental vulnerability and to environmentally degraded territories, underscoring the need to strengthen the role of social work in socio-environmental management and climate action.

The reviewed studies (Table 6) demonstrate the methodological and thematic diversity with which Green Social Work (GSW) has been addressed. Although qualitative approaches predominate, particularly the use of case studies, interviews, and document analysis, there is also a quantitative study that examines environmental attitudes among social work professionals using a validated scale. This trend highlights the importance of understanding the experiences and narratives of communities affected by environmental issues, by deeply analyzing subjective experiences and community processes. However, it also limits the possibility of generalizing findings or assessing the long-term impacts of GSW, pointing to a significant research gap. Moreover, many of the variables discussed in these studies are presented predominantly in conceptual or normative terms rather than as operational constructs, which limits comparability across studies and underscores the early stage of theoretical consolidation in the field. Alongside empirical studies, there are also conceptual contributions that expand GSW’s theoretical framework through intersectional, ecological, and post-anthropocentric perspectives. The findings show that implementing GSW in diverse contexts has had a significant impact in areas such as professional training, post-disaster reconstruction, and community activism. Studies focus on both educational contexts and direct community intervention, evidencing the versatility of this approach. Additionally, the intersectionality of the issues addressed through GSW is emphasized. The reviewed literature indicates that GSW functions as a key tool to mitigate structural inequalities and strengthen community participation in environmental governance. Overall, the findings reflect a growing recognition of social work’s role within the socio-environmental agenda. The need to integrate ecological knowledge and adaptation strategies into public policies and professional training is emphasized, aiming to promote more sustainable and equitable responses to environmental challenges. Innovative proposals, such as including non-human animals as ethical and political subjects, further expand GSW’s scope toward post-anthropocentric frameworks.

Table 6. Type of study and results.

Author and Year	Objectives	Participants	Instruments	Type of Analysis	Results
Androff et al. (2017)	To examine how to integrate environmental rights and social justice into community social work practice	3 case studies with small groups of students in community practice courses	Case studies, interviews, participatory observation	Comparative qualitative analysis through case studies	The students achieved significant outcomes in awareness campaigns, the creation of community gardens, and political activism
Bowles et al. (2016)	Compare international codes of ethics: United Kingdom, USA, and Australia	Not applicable (documentary analysis of codes of ethics)	Documentary review	Comparative analysis	Differences in professional ethics: national codes do not include concern for environmental sustainability as a central professional issue. Australia includes it most effectively
Breen et al. (2023)	Develop GSW in education and professional training through case studies	No direct participants (document analysis of case studies)	Case studies	Theoretical-applied study with qualitative case analysis and formulation of a four-step model	Three case studies were examined, each focused on one of the three main types of hazards: natural, technological, and intentional/voluntary. Each case study provided insight into how GSW works in practice and offered recommendations for professionals and students to learn how to use the framework
Ku and Dominelli (2018)	Implement a transdisciplinary model. Examine the impact of GSW in post-disaster reconstruction in China	Rural community affected. Temple Village community; number of participants not specified.	Participatory Action Research, observation, interviews, community workshops	Qualitative analysis focused on participatory methods.	Improvement in quality of life through local projects. Community participation enhances resilience and generates sustainable post-disaster strategies. A community kitchen was built in a temple through a participatory process that assessed people’s needs in a transdisciplinary manner
Castañeda-Meneses (2024)	Characterize the state of Environmental Social Work in Chile and its contributions to GSW	Documentary research with no direct participants (document source)	Review of documents, international reports, public policies, and scientific literature	Qualitative documentary analysis, categorized by thematic areas	Contributions of Social Work: (1) Use of environmental diagnosis. (2) Actions related to prevention, minimization, mitigation, reparation, and compensation. (3) Social problems derived from the environmental crisis
Dominelli and Ku (2017)	Promote social and environmental justice, community resilience, and reduce dependency on global markets through participatory research and environmental education	Rural communities, environmental NGOs, educators, social workers, policy administrators, environmental specialists	Workshops, surveys, interviews, focus groups, policy and social economy document analysis	Descriptive qualitative study	Resistance to GSW, lack of trained educators, limited access to green technologies, and need for community inclusion
Dominelli (2013)	Examine the role of GSW in environmental justice	Not applicable (conceptual study)	Not applicable (conceptual study)	Not applicable (conceptual study)	Promotion of environmental justice and GSW
Dominelli (2014)	Examine experiences of survivors of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and links to environmental justice	Affected people in Sri Lanka: 368 interviews, 12 focus groups, 45 online questionnaires, 35 field notes	Interviews, questionnaires, transcripts analyzed using NVivo	Thematic qualitative analysis	Disasters exacerbate social inequalities; need to integrate environmental justice into social work
Dominelli (2020)	Explore social work’s role in COVID-19; analyze the pandemic’s impact on practice and worker challenges	Social workers and social care workers involved in pandemic service delivery	Surveys, narratives; observations and analysis of social workers’ working conditions, documentation of experiences with technology, personal protective equipment, limited supervision, and compliance with government guidelines	Descriptive and critical analysis of social work challenges during the pandemic	Environmental health relevance in pandemics; social workers adapted despite adversity, lack of equipment, and limited support
Downey et al. (2023)	Examine cultural, recreational, and environmental meanings of water for a rural community in Mildura	N = 33 Residents of the Mildura community. Inclusion criteria: Reside in Mildura and be at least 18 years old	Questionnaire adapted from the Social and Economic Long-Term Monitoring Program (SELTMP). It consists of 69 items and 4 open-ended questions.	Mixed methods. Deductive descriptive analysis of quantitative data using SPSS (Version 28). Inductive thematic analysis of open-ended responses using a green social work lens. NVivo software used to manage qualitative data	Water is considered essential for life, community identity, and cultural connection to the Murray River, including ties to Indigenous and agrarian cultures. Its recreational use is frequent. Tensions are identified between ecological and agricultural functions, as well as concern over the lack of institutional response to climate change
Fraser et al. (2021)	To evaluate the role of animals as relevant to green social work and in disaster contexts	Not applicable (conceptual study)	Not applicable (conceptual study)	Not applicable (conceptual study)	Social work urgently needs to reconsider its silence on animals and the anthropocentric framework that accompanies it. Recognizing speciesism as part of intersectional social work will require the profession to question the supposed primacy of humans over all other animals and the environment
Marlow and van Rooyen (2001)	Explore the connection between social work and the environment	Professionals and educators; N = 113 (54% New Mexico, 46% KwaZulu-Natal)	Literature review	Critical analysis	Disconnection between theory and practice. Both groups consider it important to include the environmental perspective and engage groups but face various challenges in doing so.
Muchacha and Mushunje (2019)	Analyze the impact of climate change on rural women and assess strategies based on GSW	Women from rural communities in Zimbabwe; number of participants not specified	Interviews, observations, statistical data, document analysis	Qualitative thematic analysis with a critical and structural approach	Gender inequalities exacerbate climate impacts; intervention through policies and GSW is required
Shaw (2011)	Measure environmental beliefs among social workers. Examine whether there are differences among social workers based on their level of participation in the environmental movement.	Members of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) (N = 373)	Environmental Belief Scale (NEPS)	Descriptive quantitative analysis. Average scores on the 15 NEPS items were compared among respondents who identified as ‘Always’ or ‘Almost always’ participating in an environmental organization	Social workers do not differ from the general population in environmental beliefs. Differences were found based on political affiliation and support for environmental activism
Wu and Greig (2022)	Explore and improve social work teaching and practice interventions in a multi-disaster context; a two-academic-year qualitative study based on critical and reflective interaction. Examine the key components of GSW in social work education and training in Canada.	A junior faculty member with GSW experience and a Master’s in Social Work student; interaction in instructor–student and supervisor–apprentice roles over two academic years.	Critical reflection notes, emails, and virtual meetings; feedback from third parties	Thematic qualitative content analysis focused on health and well-being, based on pedagogical reflections and experiences.	Essential components, adaptability, interdisciplinarity, and participatory capacity to strengthen GSW in educational contexts.

The limitations identified in the reviewed studies point to both methodological and structural challenges in the implementation of Green Social Work (GSW) (see Table 7). These include a lack of financial and time resources, reliance on community cooperation, and limited scalability. Another significant challenge is the restricted generalizability of the results. Additionally, the findings highlight the absence of empirical studies that assess the effectiveness of GSW.

Table 7. Limitations identified by the authors in the examined articles.

Author and Year	Limitations
Androff et al. (2017)	Lack of financial resources and time constraints in semester-long projects; limited scope due to voluntariness.
Bowles et al. (2016)	Perspective limited to developed countries; no additional specific limitations mentioned.
Breen et al. (2023)	Limited international experience. Arising from literature and the case study itself, which does not capture longitudinal developments
Ku and Dominelli (2018)	Lack of generalization and dependence on community cooperation.
Castañeda-Meneses (2024)	The documentary nature of the work may limit its immediate practical applicability.
Dominelli and Ku (2017)	Lack of integration of GSW into education and national sustainable development policies in China.
Dominelli (2013)	Lack of empirical studies that measure the effectiveness of green social work.
Dominelli (2014)	Difficulty extrapolating results due to the exploratory nature of the design; cultural and social approaches limited to one region
Dominelli (2020)	Lack of preparedness for zoonotic disasters; no additional specific limitations provided.
Downey et al. (2023)	Small and self-selected sample with educational and environmental bias, low Indigenous participation, inconsistent scales, limitations of the quantitative approach to capture depth
Fraser et al. (2021)	Lack of empirical data on the inclusion of animals in practice.
Marlow and van Rooyen (2001)	It is an exploratory study. Rural bias, sample more inclined towards environmental issues. Difficulties in developing instruments
Muchacha and Mushunje (2019)	Difficulty extrapolating results to other contexts and dependence on contextual data.
Shaw (2011)	Small sample size, low political diversity (used as grouping and analysis variable).
Wu and Greig (2022)	Context limited to the experience of two researchers with possible subjective influences; lack of a broader approach in terms of sample or quantitative methods to validate findings; dependent on the specific context of multiple disasters in Canada and global situations during the study. Results are based on individual reflections, which limits generalization.

4. Discussion

The findings of this review suggest that Green Social Work (GSW) is beginning to consolidate as a relevant approach within social work, particularly due to its capacity to integrate two key concepts, environmental justice and sustainability, within vulnerable contexts. However, although most articles agree in characterizing GSW as a transdisciplinary and socially just approach, a shared operational definition is still lacking. This absence limits the ability to compare studies and systematize practices across contexts. Establishing minimum areas of consensus would support greater conceptual coherence without dismissing the pluralism and diversity that characterize the field. For the purposes of this review, GSW is understood as a professional, community-based, and policy-oriented approach that integrates social and environmental justice to address the structural drivers of socio-ecological vulnerability. This operational definition emphasizes three key elements: (1) the inseparability of ecological and social well-being; (2) the need for interventions that combine direct practice with structural and institutional action; and (3) the use of transdisciplinary methods to strengthen community resilience. Making this definition explicit provides conceptual coherence across the included studies and responds directly to the lack of a consensual definition identified in the literature.

In terms of practical application, GSW is primarily implemented in highly vulnerable contexts: rural communities, areas affected by climate change, or natural disasters. In these settings, GSW functions as a tool for community resilience, local empowerment, and structural transformation. Furthermore, some studies expand its theoretical framework by incorporating ecofeminist, interspecies, or post-anthropocentric approaches, such as Fraser et al. (2021), suggesting a conceptual evolution toward more inclusive and critical models. This evolution connects with frameworks like Environmental Social Work (ESW), also referenced in the literature to explore the relationship between social work and the environment. ESW has been widely addressed in the literature as a framework that seeks to link social work with environmental issues, incorporating ecological, educational, and preventive perspectives (Gray et al. 2013). This approach emphasizes the need for the profession to recognize the interdependence between people and their natural environment, promoting environmental awareness and sustainable practices within professional practice. However, GSW represents a more critical perspective, committed to social change through the transformation of the social, economic, and political structures that generate socio-environmental inequalities (Dominelli 2012).

In conceptual terms, GSW can be situated within core debates in environmental sociology that challenge the assumption that human societies are exempt from ecological limits and divorced from biophysical processes. Classic contributions in this field have highlighted the need to move from a human-exemptionalist view of social life toward a “new ecological paradigm” that recognizes the dependence of social systems on ecosystems and the unintended consequences of overexploiting them (Dunlap and Catton 1979). From this perspective, environmental problems are not merely technical or natural phenomena but are deeply embedded in social structures, power relations, and patterns of production and consumption (Hannigan 2006; Pellow and Nyseth Brehm 2013). GSW translates these insights into the domain of social work by framing ecological crises as expressions of social stratification and by linking environmental harms to unequal distributions of risk, protection, and political voice.

Environmental sociology has also shown that environmental burdens and benefits are unevenly distributed along lines of class, race, ethnicity, and place, giving rise to an environmental justice agenda that treats ecological degradation as a form of social inequality rather than a purely environmental issue (Hannigan 2006; Pellow and Nyseth Brehm 2013). Within this framework, professional fields and institutions play a key role in either reproducing or challenging these inequalities. GSW can therefore be understood as a professional and institutional response to socio-ecological crises: it positions social work as an actor that not only supports communities in contexts of climate vulnerability and disaster, but also contests the policies and development models that systematically expose marginalized populations to higher levels of environmental risk. This alignment with environmental sociology reinforces the analytical capacity of GSW to connect everyday practice with broader structures of power, inequality, and ecological transformation.

This theoretical development has also influenced social work education and training. The reviewed studies consistently highlight the importance of integrating environmental dimensions into curricula and student training (Androff et al. 2017; Breen et al. 2023; Wu and Greig 2022). Moreover, they emphasize the need to equip professionals with tools to act in scenarios involving climate crises and disasters. However, this educational approach has been primarily developed through specific case studies, often based on limited samples or restricted to particular geographical contexts, which hampers the generalizability of findings (Dominelli 2014; Shaw 2011; Downey et al. 2023).

With regard to professional practice, studies focusing on direct intervention (Ku and Dominelli 2018; Dominelli and Ku 2017) emphasize the value of GSW in community reconstruction following a disaster. However, institutional support is needed to sustain these initiatives beyond the local level. Similarly, GSW’s presence in public policy remains weak, limiting its reach and continuity. This weak institutional positioning is closely linked to the lack of professionals and educators with specialized training in GSW (Dominelli and Ku 2017), which hinders its integration into academic programs, public agendas, and regulatory frameworks. Therefore, it is crucial to promote recognition of GSW as a cross-cutting approach in education, research, and practice. Professional social work operates as a key institutional actor in responding to socio-environmental challenges, yet its potential remains underdeveloped in most national systems. Institutional arrangements, such as fragmented governance, limited environmental mandates, and insufficient intersectoral coordination, constrain the ability of social workers to address ecological risks at the structural level. GSW highlights that effective responses require integrating social work into disaster governance, climate adaptation strategies, territorial planning, and community resilience programs. Strengthening institutional support and expanding the profession’s environmental competences would enable social work to function not only as a front-line responder but also as an agent capable of shaping socio-environmental outcomes through policy influence and systemic intervention.

Variables commonly associated with GSW in the reviewed literature include human–ecosystem interdependence, equitable access to resources, community participation, sustainability, spatial justice, and, in some cases, non-human agency. This range of variables suggests not only a broadening of the theoretical framework but also an intent to redefine the epistemological and ethical foundations of contemporary social work. However, many of these variables are presented conceptually or normatively, without clear empirical development. This presents a challenge for practical application and research, highlighting the need to operationalize these variables methodologically and generate evidence of their effectiveness in specific contexts. Additionally, the review identified several thematic gaps. Topics such as circular economy, sustainable urban planning, policy advocacy in environmental regulation, or the relationship between social work and green technologies are underrepresented. This lack suggests an opportunity to expand the GSW field into emerging areas that are crucial for ecological transition and intergenerational justice.

These methodological shortcomings are also reflected in the limitations acknowledged by the authors themselves. Specifically, there is a notable reliance on exploratory designs, case studies, and documentary approaches, which limits the generalizability of findings and the establishment of robust comparative frameworks. Empirical studies often report small sample sizes, limited participant diversity, and, in some cases, a lack of validated instruments. This pattern occurs both locally and internationally, making it difficult to systematically assess the effectiveness of GSW in practice. Similarly, the literature reveals a scarce use of longitudinal designs and an overreliance on qualitative studies with small samples. This impedes impact evaluation and underscores the need to strengthen research methodologies by incorporating quantitative and/or mixed-method approaches and conducting medium- to long-term assessments.

Furthermore, a disconnect is observed between the theoretical principles of the GSW model and its practical implementation. Although Dominelli (2018) proposes a well-defined sequence of steps (risk assessment, planning, action, and implementation), few studies adopt this framework comprehensively. Only the works of Ku and Dominelli (2018) and Dominelli and Ku (2017) demonstrate a structured application of the model, highlighting a gap between theory and practice. This points to the need for tools that facilitate systematic application, as well as mechanisms to assess effectiveness. Additionally, one of the core principles of GSW, evidence-based development and community participation (Dominelli 2012), is rarely met in the reviewed studies. While some employ participatory methodologies such as action research, there are no systematic mechanisms to integrate community experience with scientific knowledge, which limits the validity and practical relevance of findings.

The review shows that social work, traditionally focused on social and economic aspects, has paid little attention to climate change and the links between environmental degradation and inequality. GSW seeks to address this gap by broadening its scope to include ecological issues and new forms of vulnerability. This represents a significant theoretical shift, albeit with limited development to date. In this regard, Dominelli and Ku (2017) suggest that GSW has not yet managed to influence or become integrated into public policy, partly due to the lack of trained professionals, researchers, and educators in this field. This shortage limits the profession’s ability to effectively address challenges such as climate change, deforestation, health deterioration, well-being, or displacement caused by environmental crises.

To achieve real impact, it is essential that universities, governments, and non-governmental organizations recognize GSW as a key cross-cutting tool in both training and professional practice. One possible strategy is to include theoretical content on environmental justice, sustainability, and ecological ethics in university curricula for social work, while also analyzing how to intervene in different problem scenarios from a GSW perspective (e.g., solving case studies on defending farmers’ rights, disaster response, etc.). Likewise, incorporating practitioners’ experience into public policy design, especially in post-disaster recovery plans, can strengthen social responses to environmental emergencies.

This review has some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the use of specific search criteria may have excluded relevant studies published in other languages or adopting related approaches. Second, among the analyzed articles, there is a predominance of qualitative designs and case studies, which provide interpretive depth but limit generalizability. Moreover, several studies are based on small, self-selected samples or focused on specific contexts, making it difficult to extrapolate findings. Finally, there is limited inclusion of longitudinal evaluations, and few studies systematically apply the GSW model, highlighting the need for further theoretical, methodological, and applied development.

5. Conclusions

In summary, this review meets the proposed research objectives by identifying both the potential and the current limitations of GSW. The findings confirm its presence across various domains of social work, although unevenly distributed, and show that its implementation is concentrated in highly vulnerable contexts, particularly disaster recovery, rural communities, and socio-environmentally precarious settings. A central limitation is the absence of a shared operational definition, which constrains the systematization of practices, hampers cross-study comparability, and reflects the early stage of theoretical consolidation in the field. The working definition proposed in this review contributes a clearer analytical foundation, while acknowledging the need for further empirical validation. The empirical development of GSW remains restricted and dominated by qualitative, exploratory, and small-scale studies, meaning that current conclusions should be interpreted as emerging trends rather than definitive evidence. Methodological shortcomings, including the lack of preregistered or standardized protocols, limited longitudinal evaluations, heterogeneous conceptualizations, and the absence of shared metrics, further limit the possibility of cumulative knowledge. Moreover, its integration into education and professional training continues to be incipient and fragmented, relying on isolated initiatives rather than consolidated frameworks. Overall, these findings point to both significant advances and persistent challenges, underscore the need to strengthen GSW not only as a conceptual framework but also as a practical tool for training, intervention, and social transformation. In doing so, GSW not only addresses the environmental crisis but also renews social work’s commitment to human rights, justice, equity, and sustainability, reinforcing its relevance in an increasingly interdependent and crisis-prone world.