From Voice to Action: Upholding Children’s Right to Participation in Shaping Policies and Laws for Digital Safety and Well-Being

Abstract

While the digital environment offers new opportunities to realise children’s rights, their right to participation remains insufficiently reflected in digital policy frameworks. This study analyses the right of the child to be heard in the academic literature and in the existing international legal and EU regulatory frameworks. It explores how children’s participation right is incorporated into EU and national digital policies and examines how genuine engagement can strengthen children’s digital resilience and support their well-being. By applying the 7C model of coping skills and analysing its interaction with the right to participation, the study highlights how these elements mutually reinforce the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Through a qualitative analysis of key strategic documents and the relevant policy literature, the research identifies the tension between the formal acknowledgment of children’s right to participate and its practical implementation at law- and policy-making levels within the digital context. Although the European Union’s examined strategies emphasise children’s participation, their practical implementation often remains abstract and fragmented at the state level. While the new BIK+ strategy shows a stronger formal emphasis on child participation, this positive development in policy language has not yet translated into a substantive change in children’s influence at the state level. This nuance highlights that despite a positive trend in policy rhetoric, the essential dimension of genuine influence remains underdeveloped.

1. Introduction

Children’s right to participation is increasingly emphasised in the context of the digital environment. A practical example of how children’s voices can be heard—and their opinions expressed—was the demonstration in Brussels in 2023, where children took to the streets in protective clothing to call the attention of EU decision-makers to the need for better regulation against child sexual abuse. This issue is becoming more pressing considering the development of AI technologies [1]. In another example, more than 10,000 children across the EU participated in the drafting of the EU strategy on the rights of the child, published in 2021, which coordinates EU policies regarding children’s rights. The strategy addresses the safe use of the digital environment and explores its potential. These two examples—an event based on social activism and participation in an abstract decision-making process—both highlight that children’s voices are not only an obligation for states under international, EU law and domestic law, but are increasingly a sine qua non requirement for regulation in the digital environment.

The digital environment and technological advances have created new opportunities for children to access information, participate and express their views. At the same time, the digital environment also implies a range of risks [2]. This duality makes it important to ensure that children’s lived experience and voice is channelled through their participation in shaping digital regulations and policies that affect them. Supporting children’s participation in decision-making related to their online safety and opportunities in the digital environment is not only a legal obligation, but also an important element in developing digital resilience. For children to be able to cope, it is essential that they have adequate knowledge of their rights and that the exercise of these rights is supported by society and the state. Participation is therefore not only a right, but also a means to empower and protect children in the digital world.

Children’s right to participation is closely intertwined with their social, cultural and economic environment. Participatory cultures depend not only on legal opportunities, but also on social norms, institutional practices and community attitudes. If participation is merely formal, it is more of a symbolic presence than a real influence, as Taft (2025) points out [3]. Cultures can be influenced by socio-economic background, adult-centred perspectives, education, cultural norms, gender, disability, digital literacy and access to ICT tools. In principle, higher socioeconomic status provides more opportunities for quality participation, as opposed to disadvantaged status. However, research findings have also been published that refute this [4]. This also shows that the state of participatory culture depends on several factors, and social status alone does not determine it. The adult-centred approach has a negative impact on the exercise of the right to participation and, in this context, on children’s dependence on adults in decision-making [5]. The role of the educational environment is also important in this regard. A democratic, interactive school environment promotes participation, while authoritarian structures restrict it [6,7]. The value of children’s opinions depends significantly on the extent to which the involvement of children in decision-making is accepted in each society. In some cultures, children’s contributions are a natural part of community processes. Elsewhere, hierarchical structures mean that children’s voices are less likely to be heard, and participation is hindered by certain factors [6]. This affects certain groups of children even more, particularly girls and those with disabilities [8,9]. Today, the digital divide can be a significant barrier to the realisation of the right to participation. This refers not only to a lack of access to technology and ICT devices [10], but also to a lack or insufficient level of digital literacy, motivation and social support [11].

In addition, it is important to strive for, or at least acknowledge, a balance between the generalisation of “all children” and the consideration of individual needs. Participation cannot be uniform; rather, it requires a personalised approach that considers children’s own experiences, competencies and preferences. Compared to a general, standardised legal framework, such an approach naturally entails greater complexity, demands higher professional preparedness and involves increased resource requirements. A personalised approach considers, among other factors, the child’s age, maturity, competencies, prior experiences, cultural background and linguistic characteristics, as well as the environmental conditions that may influence the possibility of forming and expressing views [12].

The child’s right to be heard has two dimensions: individual and collective, both relating to participation in decision-making. Individual participation means the child influences their own matters, while collective participation means a group of children influence decisions for the common good. Collective participation refers to situations where groups of children—such as school classes, youth forums or child-led organisations—express their views collectively, rather than as isolated individuals. This form of participation is especially relevant in shaping laws and policies that affect large groups of children [13].

The literature has discussed in detail the child’s right to participation and the context that supports its effective implementation. Laura Lundy’s model for the education sector, published in 2007, is in widespread use. The Lundy model conceptualises child participation along four closely interrelated dimensions. In the context of space, it is necessary to ensure that children can share their views in a safe, accessible and child-friendly environment. In terms of voice, children must be empowered to exercise their right to express their views in an appropriate and informed way. In terms of audience, it must be guaranteed that children’s views are heard by actors who are able and willing to take them into account. In terms of influence, it must be ensured that children’s views have a real impact on decision-making [14]. The Lundy model for channelling children’s participation has been widely applied at supranational level. Involving children in decisions that affect them at the level of abstract decisions, such as policy discussions or in relation to legislation, has become more common in recent years, but effective (meaningful) involvement of children is necessary to ensure that these initiatives are not merely tokenistic [15].

The rights of children to participate in decision-making about the digital environment become critical, given that they are socialised in this space, while most of their parents and decision-makers are typically digital immigrants. This generational asymmetry calls for the inclusion of children’s perspectives and experiences in regulatory processes, as it ensures that the norms that are developed are truly relevant to the needs of the target group and the realities of the risks they generate [16].

Warrington and Larkins address what they consider to be a misconception, both at the level of theory and practice, of the child’s right to protection and the right to participation as mutually exclusive [17]. In line with the authors’ findings, our aim is to emphasise that the child’s right to participation in the context of the challenges of the digital environment contributes to a more effective implementation of the child’s right to protection. This connection is seen as relevant in the light of the links between legal consciousness and the resilience of the child. The capacity of the child to cope, as a key element of resilience, contributes to their well-being by enabling them to deal appropriately with potentially negative impacts [18]. Just as coping capacity shapes well-being, similar concerns arise in the digital sphere—where, however, the very concept of digital well-being remains unsettled. For example, Bittner views it as the way in which ICT tools can be incorporated into children’s lives for positive purposes, such as promoting development and learning. At the same time, several authors interpret the concept by applying a negative definition, which, according to Bittner, is problematic as it reinforces the narrative of children’s vulnerability instead of emphasising their capabilities [19]. The essence of digital well-being lies in maintaining balance in three areas: physical, psychological and social–emotional well-being. Although there are overlaps with digital literacy, these are distinct concepts, and the realisation of digital well-being requires the development of digital literacy [20].

The study broadly interprets the concept of social resilience. Resilience as an adaptive capacity is present in transport networks, organisations and cybersecurity, as well as in a socio-ecological sense [21,22,23,24,25]. A common element in these models is that the system can maintain its operability despite stress or external disruption. This principle, the dynamics of adaptation and stability, can be transferred to the examination of children’s resilience in the digital environment. For this, however, it is recommended to study a resilience model of a different, psychosocial nature than the ones above. The study applies the 7C model developed by Ginsburg and Jablow, which focuses on the human aspects of resilience and its improvable components [26]. The meaningful exercise of children’s right to participation presupposes that children experience qualitative development in the attributes defined by the 7C model. The establishment and qualitative strengthening of each attribute contributes to the effective implementation of children’s right to participation in any given society. Competence means the ability to solve problems and understand surrounding processes to provide appropriate responses. Character ensures that such responses are shaped by moral values, with regard for others. Confidence is required for children to act and believe that their opinion has worth, while connection allows them to relate to others and build social networks. Contribution reveals to the child that they possess value, and this sense of value reinforces their self-esteem. A child equipped with coping and control is able not only to understand what is happening around them and evaluate what should be done, but also to determine whether that course of action is correct, whether they have someone to discuss it with and whether they can integrate it into future decisions. Moreover, they can manage the stress arising from participation and view themselves as having a genuine say in their own life [26].

A foundational prerequisite for the practical realisation of the resilience outlined by the 7C model is the precise conceptualisation of digital literacy. To clarify the concept, it is essential to distinguish it from two related yet distinct concepts: traditional, print-based literacy and the narrower notion of “digital skills.” While traditional literacy focuses on the decoding and creation of linear texts, digital literacy requires navigation within non-linear, multimodal and networked environments [27]. The distinction from “digital skills,” in turn, can be understood as a paradigm shift: a move away from a purely instrumental emphasis on technical abilities toward a more holistic, critical perspective. Whereas the concept of “digital skills” reflects a decontextualised, labour-market-driven viewpoint, digital literacy is understood as a social practice rooted in the user’s lived experiences [28]. Thus, beyond technical proficiency, digital literacy encompasses cognitive, social and emotional as well as civic and ethical dimensions [29,30].

Digital literacy, then, is best understood as a layered competence made up of interlocking parts. Information and data literacy is one of the most visible. It is not enough anymore just to check a source. What matters today is also the ability to practice what researchers call “critical ignoring”: learning how to tune out the flood of irrelevant noise. One useful habit here is “lateral reading,” moving sideways across sources instead of taking a single page at face value [31]. Algorithmic literacy adds another layer. It is about tracing the hidden systems that quietly steer what reaches our screens—from the order of search results to the flow of news feeds [32]. To this we can add digital citizenship, which turns the focus to how people relate to one another online, setting norms of empathy and responsibility [33]. Finally, there is digital safety and well-being, a strand that links protection with the need to question surveillance and the slow erosion of privacy [34]. Taken together, these dimensions build a composite capacity. They enable children to not just consume digital content but to step into the role of conscious, critical and resilient participants in digital society.

The proliferation of digital literacy as a concept has had the consequence of transforming our early conceptual framework of the “digital divide.” The concept of the digital divide today no longer signifies a single-level inquiry but rather a complex of problems existing on multiple levels. The first level concerns access itself, whereby the differences denote those who may connect and the devices they own. The second level, applying to those who are already connected, highlights differences in the usage of technology and the competences gained [35]. However, the first-level divide has not gone away but has changed: today, what is most important is the quality of access, including a reliable home internet, broadband speed and the modernity of devices [36]. This, as a result, strongly influences the second-level divide, as mastering the complex skills of digital literacy is much more difficult with outdated hardware or a slow connection. Therefore, the digital divide is not only a mirror of but an amplifier for the social and economic inequalities that are already there. The level of digital literacy is consistently predicted by factors such as parental education, family income and social background [35,36,37]. The structural disadvantages faced by women and children in rural or more patriarchal contexts, which access alone cannot eliminate, not only limit their technological proficiency but also negatively shape their online self-perception—their IT identity—thereby diminishing their sense of empowerment [38]. Thus, the absence of digital literacy and the qualitative disparities among existing abilities represent the reproduction of social injustices in the digital sphere, which severely restricts the exercise of participatory rights.

The practical significance of digital literacy is most evident in crises that challenge social resilience. Resilience against disinformation serves as an excellent example. Experimental data confirms that individuals who receive targeted media and information literacy training are more effective at identifying fake news and less likely to share misleading content [39]. The impact of such training extends beyond identifying individual news items: an educational intervention based on European Commission guidelines has been proven to reduce the acceptance of conspiracy theories among young adults [40]. The Finnish educational model serves as a frequently cited example of how integrating media literacy into the national curriculum contributes to a high level of national information resilience [41]. This all indicates that promoting digital literacy is not merely about individual skill development but is a fundamental prerequisite for democratic discourse and collective agency. The absence of this competence, in turn, directly undermines children’s right to meaningful participation, as their expression of views can become vulnerable and hollowed out within a manipulative information environment [42].

The COVID-19 crisis is a good example of how a lack of digital literacy, in combination with pre-existing social inequalities, can harm both social resilience and the basic rights of those who are most vulnerable. The emergency increased the gender digital divide, thus deepening the gap for women and girls in more patriarchal structures. For them, limited access to the internet and trustworthy online health information [43] was not only a threat to their safety; it also reduced the effectiveness of community-level responses [44]. Difficulties in critically evaluating information were also evident in practice: although women actively sought information, they were often dissatisfied with its quality, which points to a lack of digital literacy [45]. Furthermore, the same logic of exclusion led to an erosion of children’s right to participation. During the pandemic, children were often considered passive recipients of top-down communication [46] while the digital divide was an obstacle to their meaningful involvement in decisions about their education [47]. The first-hand experience of children confirmed this, as most of them said they had no opportunity to express their opinions [48]. The pandemic thus revealed two faces of the same process: the lack of digital literacy and the qualitative disparities among existing abilities both weaken a society’s collective resilience and marginalise the voices of those most affected, including children, thereby depriving them of their right to meaningful participation.

2. Materials and Methods

The study analyses children’s right to participation by focusing on the level of abstract decision-making through an analytical and descriptive examination of international law and EU legislation and policies. Digital resilience—children’s adaptability and resilience to digital challenges—is closely linked to the practical implementation of the right to participation. Our aim is to explore to what extent and in what form children’s right to participation is implemented in the European digital regulatory environment. Through a qualitative content analysis, we examine the BIK and BIK+ policy maps and good practices in EU Member States to provide a comprehensive picture of the current state of play on child participation.

The literature has so far not examined in detail how children’s rights to participation are incorporated into digital policy regulations by comparing and inspecting the BIK and BIK+ strategies and how they contributed to the development of children’s digital literacy. Exploring this gap and analysing the interrelationships is therefore one of the main novelties of this research, which examines these intersections.

This research is structured in three phases to examine children’s right to be heard. The methodology section presents the general strategy of the research and describes the procedures for data collection and analysis step-by-step and in chronological order, ensuring the reliability and credibility of the study.

In the case of the term “child,” both normative and academic usage vary regarding the scope of the legal subject. In international law and European Union legislation, terminology is not always consistent; the terms “child” and “minor” are both used in legal texts. According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child is defined as any human being below the age of 18 years, unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. This study adopts that definition, using the term “child” to refer to all persons under the age of 18, unless the individual has reached the age of majority earlier under relevant national legislation.

2.1. Analysis of the Normative Framework

The first part of the research uses a qualitative methodology for the systematic arrangement and interpretation of legal and policy documents. The chosen technique is qualitative content analysis, a systematic method for interpreting textual data through a structured process of coding and identifying themes. The aim of this section is to analyse the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 12), relevant Council of Europe documents and relevant European Union legal acts. In the case of the European Union, although the legally binding nature of secondary legislation (regulations, directives) is an important factor, the research focuses on EU policy documents (the BIK and BIK+) rather than on these. This is because these documents directly aim to promote children’s participation in the digital environment and provide measurement tools to monitor their implementation. Thus, the policy framework allows for an assessment of the implementation of the legal provisions and their effectiveness by comparing the performance of individual States.

2.2. Methodological Considerations: Participation and Resilience, the State of Well-Being and Digital Literacy and Legal Consciousness

After reviewing the normative framework, the paper examines the relationship between the child’s right to participation and the development of resilience. The concept of resilience has no single, consensus-based definition, so the study interprets the concept in an interdisciplinary way, primarily in the context of social sciences and children’s rights. From this perspective, participation is not only seen as a democratic principle but also as a determinant of the ability to cope with digital risks, which is linked to children’s well-being. A child’s ability to cope, a pillar of resilience, is of heightened importance in the digital environment, as this space offers both opportunities and risks, the response to which depends on the quality of children’s resilience at a personal and community level. In this sense, the research also aims to show that institutionalised participation contributes to children’s digital well-being and to strengthening social adaptability in the 21st century, i.e., social resilience.

The analysis was conducted as a theoretical framework-based (deductive) thematic analysis, applying the 7C model as a predefined category system. Using this framework, we examined how the European Commission’s Better Internet for Kids (BIK) and Better Internet for Kids Plus (BIK+) policy documents can be interpreted from the perspective of resilience. The processing was done manually using thematic analysis, without the use of software. We read the documents in their entirety and then highlighted the parts relevant to the research question. Since the Introduction with Literature Review has shown that there is a connection between resilience, participation, well-being, digital well-being, legal consciousness and digital literacy, we also examined these keywords within BIK and BIK+. We qualitatively examined whether the selected concepts—participation, resilience, well-being, digital literacy and legal consciousness—appeared in the documents either explicitly (verbatim) or implicitly (in substance), and, if so, in what qualitative context.

2.3. Practical Implementation of Participation Rights

In the third phase of the research, the practical implementation of children’s participation rights was examined through the analysis of two EU-level policy instruments: the BIK and BIK+ policy documents. The comparative analysis used the theoretical framework of the Lundy Model, which structures the conditions for children’s meaningful participation along four dimensions: space, voice, audience and influence. To define the analytical dimensions, the theoretical framework of the Lundy model was operationalised, i.e., the concepts were broken down into specific, observable and analysable elements.

Using data from the BIK policy map report of 2020, we examined the practices of EU Member States (and of Norway and Iceland) under the second pillar, with a particular focus on the activities that promote democratic participation and fundamental rights in the online space, as well as the extent to which children are involved in the design of national campaigns and regulations affecting the digital environment. States’ responses fell into three categories: “pre-existing”, “introduced in the last 12 months” and “not available.”

Based on the BIK+ policy monitor data from 2024, the paper analyses the status of activities promoting participation in each country along the third pillar. Our analysis covered five aspects, which also originated from the operationalisation of the Lundy model’s dimensions: the existence of activities to promote children’s participation, the existence of legislation requiring participation, efforts to raise consciousness of children’s rights, the inclusive implementation of participation and the availability of child-friendly policy documents. States rated their situation according to the categories “in place”, “in development”, “other” or “not in place.”

3. Results

3.1. The Normative Framework of Children’s Right to Be Heard

The right to participation was codified in Article 12 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This article states that in all matters affecting them, children must be heard and may express their views—be it on the quality of education, matters of child protection or the practice and mechanisms of direct or indirect democracy. The child’s right to be heard consists of two elements: individual and collective—that is, the right to influence decision-making [49]. The UNCRC requires States Parties to ensure children can express their views freely and that these views are duly considered according to their age and maturity [50].

The General Comments of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, as soft law instruments, assist in interpreting the Convention. Article 12 is elaborated in Comment No. 12 (2009), based on children’s experiences, affirming their right to be heard as a core principle of participation under the UNCRC. This right applies to individuals and groups alike and must be ensured in the making, evaluation and development of laws and policies affecting children. States have a duty to incorporate children’s views without imposing age restrictions, acknowledging their capacity to express themselves. Education and training institutions also play a role by promoting rights education and participation in decision-making. While Article 12 guarantees children a say in all matters concerning them, implementation remains challenging, particularly in the digital sphere [51]. General Comment No. 25 (2021) emphasises the need to respect children’s views in relation to the digital environment and highlights the potential of digital technologies to support inclusive consultation processes [52].

Within the framework of the Council of Europe, particular attention has been given to children’s right to participation in the context of the digital environment, as reflected in the Recommendation on the participation of children and young people under the age of 18 (CM/Rec(2012)2) and the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers on the Guidelines to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of the child in the digital environment (CM/Rec(2018)7) [53,54]. Both documents promote children’s participation, and during the drafting process of the latter, children were actively consulted. The report titled “It’s Our World: Children’s Views on How to Protect Their Rights in the Digital Environment” provides valuable guidance in this regard [55]. Similarly, during the drafting process of the Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2022–2027), children were consulted, and their proposals were incorporated into the Strategy as key highlights [56].

In the European Union, the practical implementation of participation is also a key focus. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not explicitly include the phrase to participate, but it does recognise the right of children to express their views [57]. The Children’s Rights Strategy published in 2021 devotes a great deal of space to children’s participation—and this has been put into practice in the process of its creation—in abstract decision-making at supranational, national and local levels [58]. The digital environment creates a new space for children to express their views on issues that affect them, where technology enables them to participate in the preparation and monitoring of decisions in a way that is easily accessible, even without barriers, to children. To support participation, the EU launched the Children’s Participation Platform to channel children’s voices in 2022 [59]. The BIK and BIK+ strategic framework explicitly prioritises the active involvement of children in decisions affecting their digital well-being. The BIK already aimed to create a safe internet across policies in 2012. It addresses a broad spectrum of issues to make the internet a safe place for children through the regulatory environment [60]. The BIK has produced three reports, the latest in November 2020, covering the Member States, along with Norway, the UK and Iceland, examining the state of play of the policy framework, rulemaking and implementation across the four strategic pillars outlined in the BIK [61]. Among the actions towards children, the involvement of children in decisions affecting them, whether legislative or policy related, should be highlighted. The BIK approached child safety in the digital environment around four pillars: (1) encouraging the development of quality online content for children; (2) increasing awareness-raising and preparedness measures; (3) creating a safe online environment for children and (4) combating child sexual abuse and exploitation. Under the second pillar, the right of children to participate was addressed [60].

The BIK was reviewed in 2022, and the European Commission adopted the new European strategy for a better internet for kids. The BIK+ has three pillars: (1) ensuring safe digital experiences and protecting children from harmful and illegal content online, (2) increasing digital empowerment and (3) ensuring active participation. The two reports on the achievement of the BIK+ objectives include good practices in Member States, so that Member States can also follow up on the new strategy. The third pillar is closely linked to child participation. To support this, the Commission has also published a child-friendly version of the BIK+ and will organise a child-led evaluation of the BIK+ strategy every two years. In addition, from 2023, the Commission will involve children in the development of the EU Code of Conduct under Pillar 1 and promote child-initiated and child-led actions focusing on digital issues relevant to young people, and from 2022, structures for child involvement will be strengthened: the role of BIK Youth Ambassadors and panels will be extended to support national, regional and local expert activities [62].

3.2. The Relationship Between Participation and Resilience

During the deductive thematic analysis of the BIK and BIK+ strategies, the research found clear connections between the policy documents and the seven competencies of the 7C resilience model. This confirms the initial hypothesis that the policies are suitable for strengthening resilience.

Table 1. 7C Elements in the EU’s BIK and BIK+ documents.

7C Element	BIK (2012)	BIK+ (2022)
Competence	To promote digital and media literacy through education and teacher training.	To foster digital literacy, critical thinking and media literacy among children.
Confidence	To encourage children to participate online safely and responsibly.	To empower children to engage online safely and confidently.
Connection	To support Safer Internet Centres and youth networks.	To support the creation of safe online communities for children.
Character	To foster respect and responsible behaviour online.	To promote respect for others and responsible behaviour online.
Contribution	To engage children in creating positive online content and in policy-making processes.	To engage children in shaping digital policies and initiatives.
Coping	To provide tools and training to address cyberbullying and harmful content.	To equip children to deal with online harassment and harmful content.
Control	To ensure availability of parental controls, privacy settings and age-appropriate access.	To promote awareness and control of privacy settings and personal data management.

provides a breakdown of how each competency is addressed by the two strategies.

In examining the BIK and BIK+ strategies with a focus on participation rights and resilience, as well as related concepts such as well-being, digital well-being, legal consciousness and digital literacy, the following conclusions can be drawn (Figure 1).

The importance of participation is undoubtedly emphasised in both policies. BIK encourages the involvement of children in security and regulatory issues in the digital environment, for example in consultations or educational processes. BIK+ goes even further, highlighting that children’s participation is not merely an additional element, but one of the cornerstones of shaping the digital environment. Participation appears as an equal dimension alongside safety and protection.

Interestingly, the term “resilience” does not occur literally in either document, but it is present in an indirect form. For example, BIK emphasises that children need to learn to recognise and manage online risks (harmful content, harassment, misleading information). BIK+ takes this idea further, emphasising the role of support strategies and educational programs in processing negative online experiences. Our analysis based on the 7C model also confirms that resilience is an integral part of both guidelines in terms of content.

One of the main differences between BIK and BIK+ is that the term well-being does not appear at all in the former. In contrast, this term appears several times in the BIK+ document, emphasising that the online environment should not only be safe, but also a space that supports children’s well-being. The term digital well-being does not feature explicitly in either document, but its meaning is related to balanced digital use.

Legal consciousness is also not mentioned explicitly in either document, but it is implied in their content. The BIK states that children must be aware of their rights and obligations and understand the rules, laws and consequences of the digital environment. The BIK+ places even greater emphasis on knowledge and respect for rights. The goal is now not only to learn the rules, but also to develop responsible, conscious and ethical digital citizenship behaviour.

BIK interprets digital literacy primarily as a defence and security competency. BIK+ expands on this concept, interpreting it in the context of legal consciousness, ethical thinking, participation and well-being. Based on both documents, digital literacy is not just a skill, but a complex ability and attitude that is essential for children to thrive in the digital environment.

3.3. Findings from the BIK and BIK+ Policy Monitoring

During our analysis in the second phase, we summarised the results collected on the BIK and BIK+ policies in separate tables containing specific sentences from the documents and the corresponding 7C elements assigned to them. Our initial hypothesis was that the two policies examined are suitable for strengthening resilience. As this assumption was confirmed, we continued the examination in a broader context. We also visually illustrated the results in a concept map, which shows the relationships between resilience, the right to participation, legal consciousness and sustainable development.

The collation of the data provides an opportunity to monitor progress between 2020 and 2024 and to assess the extent to which participation-related concepts have been integrated into national practice, particularly in the context of children’s rights to protection and participation in the digital environment and their potential to support resilience.

The BIK was the subject of a comprehensive study in 2020, involving EU Member States, Norway and Iceland [61]. Regarding children’s participation under the second pillar, the following findings were made based on states’ policy maps [63]. Activities to support democratic participation and fundamental rights were already in place in 23 countries and newly introduced in 3. The four countries where no such activities existed or were not reported show a significant lack of participatory space. Involvement in national-level campaigns occurred in 25 states before 2019, and in 1 additional state in the year immediately preceding the survey. The few states (four in total) where this was not done or where no data was available show the weakness of the “voice” dimension. The high rates of participation in national campaigns suggest that in most states there were forums or platforms in place to allow children’s voices to be heard—at least in terms of campaign-level communication. However, participation in the legislative processes was only found in 13 states (10 before 2019), which shows a more limited level of engagement at the policy-making level. The relatively low levels of participation in legislative processes—most notably the absence of children’s involvement or relevant data in 17 states—indicate that children’s perspectives have, to date, exerted only limited influence on the development of regulations affecting them. This finding suggests that, while space and voice are given in many places, the dimensions of audience and influence are significantly lacking—particularly in abstract, high-level decision-making, as Figure 1 shows.

The vertical axis in Figure 2 quantifies the degree of implementation, with “existent before last year” weighted as 1, “introduced in the last 12 months” as 0.5 and both “not available” and “no data is available” as 0.

Data from 2024 for the EU Member States [64], Norway and Iceland under BIK+ Pillar 3 shows that measures to support the exercise of participation in the digital environment are in place in 19 states and are being developed in 5 states, while other information is available in 5 states. Legislation requiring children’s participation exists in 16 states and is currently being developed in 1 state, while in 10 states, there is no such legislation and in 2 states, other solutions are in place. Awareness-raising on children’s rights is in place in 19 states, 7 states are in the process of developing it, 2 states have no such programme and 1 state has other arrangements in place. A total of 19 states have taken steps to promote inclusiveness related to active participation, 5 are in the process of doing so, 1 has no such measures and 4 have other solutions. Child-friendly policy documents are available in 3 states, 6 states are in the process of developing them, 14 states do not have them and 6 states are implementing this point in other ways. For Figure 3, the vertical axis represents a weighted score indicating the degree of implementation for each measure, with “in place” assigned a value of 1, “in development” 0.5, “other” 0.2 and “not in place” 0. The assigned weights (“existent before last year” = 1, “introduced in the last 12 months” = 0.5, “not available”/”no data” = 0) were applied to facilitate visual representation and comparability between countries. These weight values in Figure 2 and Figure 3 were determined specifically for this study to reflect both the maturity and stability of implementation: a full weight (1) for measures in place for over a year, half weight (0.5) for recently introduced measures and zero for absent or undocumented measures. These specific values were our own methodological choice, based on the content and internal logic of the dataset.

Applying the Lundy model to the BIK+ findings provides a more granular view of these structural deficiencies. Measures supporting digital participation in 19 countries indicate that in these states, the space for participation is formally ensured. The five countries where such measures are still under development also show a positive direction of progress. Awareness-raising programs implemented in 19 countries demonstrate that these states help children in shaping their own opinions, effectively ensuring that they have a “voice”. The existence of legislation mandating participation in 16 countries shows that these states formally commit to hearing the voices of children, creating an audience. However, policy documents created in a child-friendly format are available in only three countries, with an additional six countries currently working on their development. This strongly suggests that the influence of children’s views is currently the least supported. This indicates a serious structural deficiency in the effective realisation of the right to participation.

4. Discussion

The findings indicate a clear evolution in policy from the BIK to the BIK+ framework, yet they also reveal a persistent gap between rhetoric and reality. In the BIK framework, the issue of children’s participation appeared as an element of ensuring safety and digital skills. The BIK+ consciously and prominently incorporates children’s right to participation, with Pillar 3 (“Active participation”) aiming to strengthen children’s engagement. Based on the evaluation of BIK in 2020, mechanisms supporting children’s participation were already present in many countries, though mainly in the form of campaign-level activities. This indicated that while opportunities for children to express their opinions were provided (space and voice), their participation was mostly linked to communication events. Genuine participation in legislative processes was much more limited, revealing that the dimensions of influence and audience remained underdeveloped. Data from BIK+ shows that support for participation has been strengthened within more formal frameworks, such as structured awareness-raising programs and legislative recognition. Overall, the period between BIK and BIK+ shows a positive development trend. However, the quality of participation—especially the actual consideration and integration of children’s views into high-level decision-making—has evolved more slowly and unevenly. Ensuring that participation is not just a possibility, but a real form of influence remains a significant challenge.

While this study emphasises the protective function of participation and its positive effects, it must be noted that in certain cases, it also has potential negative connections to social resilience. One such point is that digital literacy, when examining society, is not a monolithic competence whose presence automatically leads to or strengthens resilience; the relationship between the two is more nuanced. According to some research, digital literacy is merely one prerequisite for resilience, with its quality and type determining the outcome. Basic operational skills do not offer substantial protection against complex digital threats like disinformation; this requires higher-order, critical and context-specific literacy [65]. This qualitative disparity can lead to an “uneven resilience,” where only parts of society, or in very extreme cases, only a narrow segment with higher socioeconomic status possess the competences needed for effective protection [66]. In this sense, disparities in digital literacy do not just reflect but can also amplify existing social inequalities, further marginalising those most in need of the protection afforded by digital tools [67].

A more profound tension arises when a highly skilled, digitally literate (youth) generation is met with low-quality, tokenistic or manipulative participatory opportunities. Digitally empowered, more assertive citizens expect to have a genuine say in decision-making [68]. If institutions fail to provide genuine, meaningful avenues for influence and offer only tokenistic participation, the critical faculties enhanced by digital literacy can turn against these very institutions. This dissonance can erode public trust, increase political cynicism and amplify social fault lines rather than fostering constructive dialogue, which ultimately leads to frustration and disengagement from institutional channels among the affected groups [69]. As Kelemen et al. argue, public trust in national institutions is key to sustainable security. If children and young people perceive that calls for participation are merely formal acts, it may alienate them not only from the specific issue at hand but from the democratic process. Therefore, fostering digital literacy is insufficient on its own; for it to genuinely enhance resilience and realise children’s rights, it must be paired with trustworthy and responsive institutional frameworks that make meaningful participation a reality [70].

These challenges can be better understood by linking the right to participation with the concepts of social resilience and sustainability. To support the development of resilience in children, Ginsburg and Jablow devised the 7C model [26]. This is essentially a framework for building resilience in children: if parents and educators take these elements into account and nurture them accordingly, children may become more resilient adults, capable of navigating life’s storms—including changing conditions. By fostering seven Cs attributes, we support the child in becoming a psychologically healthy, socially sensitive adult, capable of making autonomous and active decisions [71].

Capacities outlined in the 7C model the possibility of an individual with legal consciousness. Legal consciousness means that the child—and later the adult—lives their daily life in accordance with legal and moral norms. However, this is not merely a matter of legal knowledge. It also entails the recognition that one has rights, that these rights are enforceable and—if they feel that it is necessary in the interest of their immediate community or society as a whole—that one may step into the realm of civic participation and seek to influence processes [72]. These capacities lay the groundwork for civic self-assertion, reinforce a participatory and legally conscious identity and ensure that the individual not only knows they have rights, but understands how those rights operate and can assess when those rights can be exercised or when they are being violated. In other words, they can make use of their right to express opinions, articulate personal or community interests and attempt to channel them into decision-making [73].

Therefore, the application of the 7C model in relation to children’s right to participation supports the development of legal consciousness at the macro level. This in turn strengthens democratic thinking, enhances civic competences and not least, may also improve the effectiveness of child protection [26].

These capacities also have a positive impact on overall social resilience, as individuals who possess such capabilities understand and exercise their rights and recognise their own agency [38,74,75,76]. Consequently, they seek to take part in collective decision-making or at least attempt to steer it in a direction aligned with their moral standards. In this conception, legal consciousness becomes a form of social capital that reinforces resilience [77]. Legal consciousness does not only refer to the knowledge of laws. It also encompasses the ability to recognise that the individual possesses enforceable rights and extends to understanding possible ways of exercising those rights. Sharing this knowledge with and within the community strengthens trust, cooperation and mutual support. These are fundamental elements of social capital. This form of social capital increases resilience, as it enables individuals and groups to mobilise their resources, stand up for their interests and respond collectively to challenges in ways that protect their rights and enhance their well-being. The strengthening of resilience is built on community participation, knowledge sharing and the development of collective agency, as also demonstrated in socio-ecological approaches applied to environmental issues [78]. In the digital sphere, a similar example can be found in the EU’s BIK Youth Panel, in which young people from different Member States express their views and make proposals regarding EU measures on digital rights and safety. Participation in such forums not only serves to broaden legal knowledge, but also to strengthen networks and cooperative skills among young people, which in the long-term results in greater collective agency and a higher level of digital resilience [79].

Such individuals, through this understanding, contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 16, which seeks to establish peaceful, just and accountable societies [80]. The active exercise of the right to participation teaches children that they have the right to express their views and to be involved in decision-making. This fosters the development of responsible, active citizens who wish to participate in the functioning of society. Based on a sound moral foundation, this reduces exclusion, supports the bottom-up strengthening of the rule of law and improves state complaint mechanisms for vulnerable groups. Moreover, it promotes accountability and transparency as social expectations, which in turn helps to develop anti-corruption attitudes and—crucially—enhances trust in institutions.

In summary, the exercise of children’s right to participation has a multi-level impact. It strengthens social resilience, lays the foundation for active and conscious citizenship, contributes to the development of the rule of law and thereby directly supports the implementation of the goals enshrined in SDG 16. These effects are particularly relevant to the state’s resilience in the context of public security, as they contribute to strengthening of public trust in state institutions.

Well-being has become a key topic across many academic fields, though how it is understood often depends on the specific discipline and cultural setting [81]. In today’s world, the digital environment plays an increasingly important role in how children’s rights are realised. Digital transformation is still unfolding, and it may help move us closer to meeting the SDGs [82]. Upholding the rights outlined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child could be an essential part of reaching these goals—especially those connected to children’s health and well-being, as highlighted in SDG 3 [83]. In the long run, focusing more on children’s needs when working toward the SDGs might improve the well-being of future generations. The digital space also opens ways for children to have their voices heard and to take part in decisions that impact their lives. This kind of participation can help realise the 2030 Agenda’s aim of involving children as active players in building a more sustainable future. At the same time, it is not always easy to show exactly how digital risks harm children’s well-being, which is why the precautionary principle is often brought into the conversation [84]. Listening to children’s voices can play a key role in supporting the effective application of the precautionary principle, by providing decision-makers with valuable, experience-based insights.

5. Conclusions

Children’s right to participate in decision-making processes that affect them must be ensured not only at the state level but also in the decision-making and regulatory evaluation processes of supranational bodies operating with state involvement, including in the context of the digital environment. At the supranational level, several positive examples can be found regarding the inclusion of children’s participation in securing their rights in the digital space. However, as this study has shown, an overview of the relevant points of the EU’s BIK and BIK+ strategies reveals that the right and opportunity for child participation are not sufficiently ensured at the level of abstract decision-making in many states. A key issue for the genuine realisation of participatory rights remains whether children’s views can meaningfully influence the shaping of digital regulation and policy. This indicates that while the space and voice for children’s expression have become more institutionalised, their institutionalised impact remains limited. In terms of the structural conditions for children’s participation, the BIK+ represents a significant advancement compared to the original BIK Strategy.

In addition to state-level deficiencies, it is equally important to focus on services provided within or in connection with the digital environment, as children’s participation in the development and risk assessment of such services could form the subject of future research.

The results show that while the formal mechanisms of children’s participation expanded in several EU Member States during the transition from BIK to BIK+, the “influence” dimension of participation has remained limited. Viewed through the lens of Lundy’s model, it can be observed that the elements of “space” and “voice” are increasingly present in policy design, whereas the elements of “audience” and “influence” have not yet achieved a comparable level of progress.

These findings should also be interpreted with reference to the differences and tensions inherent in participation cultures. Future research may examine whether the policies of individual EU Member States enable general or individualised forms of participation. Equally important, and indispensable for effective participation, are adequate levels of legal consciousness and media literacy. All of these, in turn, clearly feed back into children’s well-being.

We argue that the relationship outlined in the study highlights the fact that a regulatory or policy framework that supports child participation, while taking into account the specific characteristics of the digital environment, can only be successful if it devotes sufficient attention to resilience, digital literacy and legal consciousness as well. Adequate levels of these elements are capable of supporting children’s well-being, which constitutes a fundamental challenge in today’s digital space.