Better Internet for Kids

Why stakeholder involvement matters

Children’s digital lives are shaped by more than legislation alone. They are influenced by school rules, platform design, education systems, public health debates, child protection frameworks, industry standards, and the everyday practices of families and communities. Policymaking in this area, therefore, cannot be effective if it is developed solely by the government. It depends on input from a wide range of actors, including regulators, public authorities, educators, civil society organisations, researchers, industry, parents and carers, and, most importantly, children and young people themselves.

This collaborative approach is built into the Better Internet for Kids (BIK+) strategy. Its three pillars, protection, empowerment and participation, all suggest that policy should be shaped both by expert input and by children’s real experiences in the digital environment. Stakeholder involvement is therefore part of what makes policy more legitimate, more grounded and more capable of responding to constant change in the digital environment.

The 2026 BIK Policy monitor shows a useful picture of how European countries are approaching this challenge. Its findings suggest that stakeholder engagement is becoming more institutionalised across Europe, with more countries putting in place formal or informal mechanisms to support involvement in policymaking. At the same time, the report reveals an important gap. Whereas consultation is becoming more common, meaningful participation, especially by children, remains less developed.

The difference between consultation and participation is therefore one of the clearest and most important messages emerging from the latest BIK Policy monitor data.

A more structured stakeholder landscape is emerging

One of the clearest findings from the 2026 Policy monitor is that stakeholder involvement is becoming more established within national BIK-related policymaking. Nine of the 29 participating countries report that a formal, designated multi-stakeholder forum is in place to facilitate the continuous involvement of all relevant stakeholder groups – including children – in policy discussion and development (EE, ES, FR, IT, LV, MT, PT, SE, SK). A further fifteen countries say that stakeholders are engaged through various existing groups rather than through a single, centrally coordinated forum (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, DK, FI, HU, IE, IS, LT, NL, NO, PL, SI). Only four report that opportunities for participation are occasional and infrequent (BG, EL, HR, RO), while one country (LU) states that there is no mechanism at government level for stakeholder groups to contribute to policy discussion and development.

These figures point to gradual institutionalisation. In the 2024 Policy monitor cycle, seven countries reported a formal forum. In the current cycle, that number has risen to nine. More broadly, the number of countries reporting some form of stakeholder involvement mechanism has increased from nineteen to twenty-four. This does not mean that all countries now have mature participation systems, but it does suggest that stakeholder engagement is increasingly treated as a standard feature of digital policymaking rather than as an ad hoc exercise.

This matters because BIK-related policy spans across multiple domains at once. For instance, questions about children’s online safety, digital well-being, and digital literacy do not sit neatly within one ministry or one professional field. They require coordination across different institutions and input from different parts of society. A more structured stakeholder landscape is therefore also a sign that countries are recognising how complex this policy area has become.

A broader ecosystem, but not a universal approach to participation

As the previous section showed, some form of stakeholder involvement mechanism is now reported in 24 of the 29 participating countries. However, the 2026 Policy monitor makes clear that this does not reflect a single European approach. Countries are widening participation through different institutional routes, using a mix of councils, advisory groups, policy platforms and other coordination structures.

Safer Internet Centre Advisory Boards continue to play a significant role and are among the most frequently cited channels for multi-stakeholder dialogue. In some countries, especially where a central government-mandated forum is absent, they remain one of the main routes through which external actors can contribute to national discussion. However, several countries have also established high-level, permanent bodies to coordinate children’s rights and safety across different government departments.

The examples reported in the Policy monitor show how varied these arrangements can be. Bulgaria’s National Council for Child Protection brings together deputy ministers and civil society representatives through an inter-institutional structure attached to the State Agency for Child Protection. Estonia’s Cross-sectoral Prevention Council provides a forum for coordination across government bodies, law enforcement and civil society. Lithuania has moved towards a more structured model through its newly established Interdepartmental Child Welfare Council. Elsewhere, governments have created special-purpose alliances or issue-specific platforms focused on areas such as digital well-being, child protection or online safety.

This diversity should not be seen as a weakness in itself. Different countries have different administrative traditions, institutional starting points and policy cultures. The more important point is that stakeholder engagement is increasingly being built into the policy ecosystem in one form or another. What varies is whether this happens through a single permanent forum, through several overlapping structures, or through more targeted alliances.

That variation also affects how inclusive and transparent these systems are. A single formal forum may provide visibility and continuity, but distributed structures can sometimes be more flexible and better connected to sector-specific expertise. The real policy question is therefore not whether all countries adopt the same approach, but whether these structures allow for regular and meaningful engagement across the main stakeholder groups.

Public consultations on children’s online lives

The 2026 Policy monitor’s findings on public consultation add another layer to this picture. They show that consultation on BIK-related topics is now common across many countries, but rarely embedded as a routine, standing practice.

Eight countries report that members of the public are routinely consulted as part of policy development on BIK topics (DK, HU, IE, IS, LV, MT, NO, SI). Ten say that the public is consulted only when new policies are being developed (BE, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, IT, PL, SE, SK). In seven countries, consultation is described as infrequent and irregular (AT, CY, EL, FR, LT, NL, PT), while four report that no public consultation is available on these issues (BG, HR, LU, RO).

This suggests that consultation is often treated as something triggered by a major legislative or policy initiative rather than as an ongoing feature of policy governance. In practice, this means that stakeholder and public involvement may be strongest at moments of legislative developments, but much weaker during implementation, monitoring or review.

The examples cited in the report reinforce this point. Countries refer to consultations on smartphone bans in schools, social media restrictions, age assurance measures, digital identity mechanisms, and recommendations on children’s use of digital devices. These are important and politically visible issues, and consultation around them can add legitimacy and improve policy quality. But they also reflect a reactive pattern: participation tends to be organised around immediate policy controversies, rather than embedded in a more anticipatory approach to children’s rights in the digital environment.

For policymaking on children’s digital lives, this can be a significant limitation. Many of the most important questions in this field do not arise only when a law is drafted. They also arise during implementation, when technologies change, when new risks emerge, when measures have unintended effects, or when the balance between protection, empowerment and participation needs to be reassessed. If consultation is tied mainly to the development of a new policy, opportunities for learning and adjustment may be missed.

In that sense, the consultation findings reveal both progress and constraints. European countries are increasingly opening channels for public input, but consultation is still not built throughout the policy cycle in a way that would make it more iterative and more participatory over time.

Children are increasingly heard, but active involvement in policy design remains limited

The main findings in this area concern children’s direct role in policy development. Here, the 2026 Policy monitor points to real progress, but also to a clear and persistent participation gap.

Nine countries now report that children and young people are actively involved in designing policies related to their participation in the digital environment through dedicated structures (ES, HU, IE, IT, MT, NO, PL, SI, SK). Seventeen countries say that children are listened to directly through hearings, consultations and specific surveys, but are not formally involved in decision-making (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EL, FI, FR, HR, IS, LU, NL, PT, RO, SE). Three countries report that children’s interests are considered indirectly, for example, through existing data or surveys, rather than through direct participation (EE, LT, LV).

There is good news in these figures. The number of countries reporting active involvement through dedicated structures has increased from five in 2024 to nine in the current cycle. That is a meaningful shift, and it suggests that more governments are beginning to treat children not only as subjects of policy, but as active participants in shaping it.

At the same time, the dominant approach remains one of consultation rather than shared design. In most countries, children are still mainly asked for their views rather than given a structured role in shaping priorities, helping test ideas, or informing final decisions. Their voices are present, but their influence is often limited.

This distinction is central. Consultation can be valuable. Hearings, surveys, focus groups and youth panels can provide insight into children’s experiences, perceptions and concerns. They can challenge adult assumptions and make policy more responsive. But consultation does not automatically amount to participation in the stronger sense implied by the BIK+ strategy. Meaningful participation means involving children more consistently throughout the policy process: helping to frame issues, comment on options, review proposals, and contribute to design, monitoring or evaluation.

The gap between these two approaches may have some consequences. When children are listened to but not formally involved, participation risks becoming symbolic. It may generate useful evidence, but without clear pathways into decision-making, it can be difficult to see how that evidence shapes the final policy outcome. For a rights-based approach to digital policy, that is a serious issue. If children are recognised as rights holders in the digital environment, their involvement should not stop at the consultation stage.

This does not mean that every policy process requires children to act as final decision-makers. Rather, it means that systems should be designed so that children’s contributions can meaningfully shape how policies are framed, explained, implemented and reviewed. The 2026 Policy monitor suggests that Europe is moving in that direction, but still unevenly and from a relatively low base.

What more meaningful participation looks like in practice

However, the Policy monitor does not only identify gaps. It also points to practical approaches that show what more meaningful participation can look like.

In Belgium (Flanders), the Flemish Youth Council acts as an official advisory body to the government, and the large-scale Leefwereldbevraging survey helped feed youth priorities, including concerns about privacy and human-centric algorithms, into the “Safe Online” action plan. In Ireland, Coimisiún na Meán established a permanent Youth Advisory Committee comprising representatives of youth organisations and young individuals, to advise on the development of the Online Safety Code. In Finland, the Digiraati platform was launched to offer everyone under 29 an equal opportunity to have their voices heard on social and policy issues. Cyprus reports the CYberSafety Youth Panel as a forum where youth representatives can exchange knowledge and contribute recommendations on the digital environment.

Other examples show how youth participation can be embedded within broader institutional structures. In Bulgaria, the Council of Children held dedicated sessions on online safety and AI. In Germany, the Advisory Board of the Federal Agency for Child and Youth Protection in the Media includes members who were under 18 at the time of appointment. In the Netherlands, a Youth Council on Digitalisation was established with UNICEF to advise the Minister for Digitalisation. Denmark’s Alliance for the digital well-being of children and youth shows another route, bringing youth rights organisations into a higher-level policy initiative focused on addictive design and screen time.

These examples matter because they move beyond one-off listening exercises. They show children and young people participating through dedicated structures, ongoing advisory mechanisms, or embedded roles within policy bodies. They also illustrate that meaningful participation can take more than one form. It can happen through formal councils, digital platforms, structured advisory committees, government-led alliances, or youth-informed review mechanisms.

Importantly, these approaches also help make participation more visible and accountable. Where dedicated structures exist, it is easier to see who is involved, what the mechanism is for, and how input is expected to feed into policy. This is one reason why they matter more than occasional consultation alone. They create continuity, not just access.

The emerging lesson from these examples is therefore not that there is one ideal approach to youth participation, but that meaningful participation tends to require three things: a dedicated channel, some degree of continuity, and a visible link to policymaking. Without those elements, participation is much more likely to remain symbolic or episodic.

Participation also depends on rights awareness and accessible information

If participation is to be meaningful, children also need to understand their rights and to have access to policy information in forms they can use.

Here too, the 2026 Policy monitor offers a mixed picture. On the one hand, awareness-raising on children’s rights in the digital environment is now widespread. Twenty-six countries report active programmes in this area (AT, BE, BG, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, HR, HU, IE, IS, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK), up from nineteen in 2024. This suggests growing recognition that children’s rights are not only a legal or policy issue, but also something that must be made visible and understandable in practice.

On the other hand, child-friendly policy documentation remains a major weakness. Only six countries report government-led initiatives to publish child-friendly versions of policy documents relevant to BIK topics (BE, BG, ES, MT, PT, SK). Six more say this is under development (HR, IE, IT, NL, RO, SI), four point to other relevant activity (AT, DE, LU, NO), and thirteen report that it is not in place at all (CY, CZ, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, HU, IS, LT, LV, PL, SE).

This gap matters more than it may first appear. Participation is not only about being asked for a view. It also depends on whether children can understand the policy questions being discussed, the rights at stake, and the choices being made. If policy documents remain inaccessible in language, format or presentation, the practical barriers to participation remain high, even where governments are formally committed to involving children.

The examples in the report help make this concrete. Belgium now requires child-friendly versions to be produced as part of its policy process and, like Portugal, has also produced a child-friendly version of UNCRC General Comment No. 25. Some countries also refer to the use of plain-language formats on government portals or to the role of Children’s Rights Commissioners and Ombudspersons in translating complex legislation into accessible guidance.

These developments point to a broader lesson. Participation depends not only on consultation mechanisms but also on accessible communication, rights awareness, and institutional support that help children understand what is happening and why it matters. Without that, even well-intentioned participation structures may exclude the people they are meant to involve.

Conclusion

Taken together, the 2026 findings suggest that the next challenge for European countries is not simply to consult more widely, but to redesign policymaking so that participation is built in more systematically.

The 2026 Policy monitor’s recommendation on “participation by design” captures this well. The issue is not whether children should occasionally be asked for views on digital policy. That threshold has already been crossed in many countries. The issue is whether national systems are evolving towards permanent structures that allow children to participate in the design, evaluation and monitoring of policies that affect their digital lives.

This has implications beyond youth participation alone. It also affects how broader stakeholder ecosystems are organised. If policy is to benefit from the knowledge of educators, regulators, civil society organisations, researchers, parents and children, then stakeholder involvement needs to be treated as part of policy design and governance, not only as a final consultation step once policy choices have already been framed.

For policymakers, this means putting in place participation structures that are stable and inclusive. For regulators and public bodies, it means making clearer how children’s and stakeholders’ views can feed into decisions. For practitioners working on children’s rights and participation, it means ensuring that children are not only heard, but that their views can make a real difference. And for the wider BIK ecosystem, it means treating participation as something that needs to be built into policymaking in practice, not simply recognised in principle.

The 2026 Policy monitor suggests that Europe is slowly but steadily moving in that direction.

Interested in more?

Explore other relevant research in the Research and reports directory of the BIK Knowledge hub. Together with the BIK Policy monitor, it is updated annually and collates research that informs the implementation of the BIK+ strategy across the EU Member States, Iceland, and Norway.