Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 136 Vol. 11 No. 3, 2025 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 1 Higher Educational Institution "Academician Yuriy Bugay International Scientific and Technical University", Ukraine (corresponding author) E-mail: rstadniichuk@ukr.net ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7614-231X 2 Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman, Ukraine E-mail: ogarafonova@ukr.net ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4740-7057 3 Higher Educational Institution "Academician Yuriy Bugay International Scientific and Technical University", Ukraine E-mail: enn89@ukr.net ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6238-6939 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2025-11-3-136-145 DIGITAL MEDIATION TOOLS IN RESOLVING SOCIAL CONFLICTS WITHIN THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM Roman Stadniichuk1, Olga Garafonova2, Oleksandr Kornaha3 Abstract. This study examines the use of digital mediation tools to resolve social conflicts within the public administration system, emphasising their growing importance in the context of the global digital transformation of governance. The research focuses on the integration of online platforms, artificial intelligence technologies and digital communication formats into public governance mechanisms for resolving conflicts. The primary aim of the research is threefold: to assess the effectiveness of digital mediation tools; to determine the level of trust in these mechanisms; and to propose a methodological framework for their evaluation, with a particular focus on the Ukrainian context during wartime recovery and governance decentralisation. In order to achieve these objectives, the authors employed a comprehensive research methodology that includes comparative analysis, content analysis, sociological surveys, and mathematical modelling. The comparative analysis focused on international experiences from countries such as Estonia, Germany, Canada, Singapore, and Ukraine, with a view to identifying best practices in digital mediation implementation. A content analysis of digital platforms was conducted to assess functionality, interactivity, and usability. A sociological survey was conducted, with 200 respondents including public officials, local community members, and mediators. The aim of the survey was to capture perceptions regarding trust, accessibility, and barriers to participation. The development of three key indices was enabled by mathematical modelling: the Index of Digital Mediation Accessibility (IDM), the Index of Digital Mediation Effectiveness (IEM), and the Index of Stakeholder Satisfaction (ISM). Collectively, these indices form a Composite Digital Mediation Index (CEM), the purpose of which is to quantify overall effectiveness. The findings indicate that digital mediation is gaining traction in public administration, facilitating transparent dialogue, broader participation, and efficient conflict resolution processes. In Ukraine, the VzaemoDIA platform and other online consultation tools have become instrumental in fostering civic engagement, particularly in regions affected by conflict or remote communities. The Composite Index calculated in the study indicated an 75% effectiveness rate, with the highest performance recorded in the stakeholder satisfaction component (83%). These results indicate that Ukrainian society is prepared to adopt digital conflict resolution tools, although there is a necessity for consideration of digital inequality, digital literacy, and data security. The study concludes that, although digital mediation cannot replace traditional methods entirely, it is a vital addition to modern governance, particularly in times of crisis. To maximise impact, policy measures should prioritise integration with broader e-governance systems, as well as providing training for public officials and citizens, developing cybersecurity infrastructure, and legally regulating online mediation processes. This study makes a valuable contribution to academic discourse by proposing a replicable evaluation framework and offering insights into Ukraine's distinctive experience of managing digital conflicts during wartime. Keywords: digital mediation, social conflicts, public administration, digital platforms, effectiveness index, online consultations. JEL Classification: O33, H83, D73 Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 137 Vol. 11 No. 3, 2025 1. Introduction In the digital age, approaches to resolving social conflicts – particularly within the public administration system – are undergoing significant transformation. The academic community has already explored the phenomenon of digital diplomacy in the context of the rise of social media and the evolution of public diplomacy in the digital era. Terms such as digital diplomacy, Twitter diplomacy, and megaphone diplomacy have become firmly established in scholarly discourse, reflecting the growing reliance on internet- based communication platforms in diplomatic and conflict resolution practices (Lember, Brandsen, Tõnurist, 2019). The internet has evolved into a distinct political space, the systematic study of which is now a recognised field within political science, public administration and conflict studies. As early as 2008, the British publishing house Routledge released the first textbook dedicated to political processes in cyberspace. In 2015, the Clingendael Institute of International Relations (Netherlands) published the manual Diplomacy in the Digital Age, which established the foundation for subsequent analyses of the impact of digital technologies on mediation and conflict resolution (Chatfield, Reddick, 2018). In recent years, the term "Twitter revolution" has been increasingly utilised in academic studies of domestic political crises and social protests. This term serves to emphasise the role of digital platforms in the mobilisation of citizens and the propagation of protest sentiments. Furthermore, the issue of information security in the context of digital conflicts has become an essential component of international security curricula, with numerous educational resources developed specifically on this topic. The advent of the pandemic and the consequent lockdown measures in spring 2020 have precipitated a renewed focus on research into digital formats for mediation and social conflict resolution in the sphere of public governance. A significant development was the advent of Zoomplomacy, which refers to the utilisation of videoconferencing platforms, notably Zoom, for negotiations, consultations, meetings, and even mediation sessions in a remote format. Digital tools, ranging from online dialogue plat- forms to specialised mediation services incorporating artificial intelligence, are increasingly becoming key elements in the modern management of social conflicts within public administration. These tools facilitate rapid communication, process transparency, and extensive stakeholder engagement, even in crisis situations. Concurrently, the digitalisation of mediation necessitates the formulation of novel methodological approaches for evaluating effectiveness, ensuring information confidentiality, and mitigating digital threats that may emerge during conflict resolution processes. 2. Literature: Previous Studies The issue of digital transformation in public administration and the engagement of citizens in social conflict resolution processes is a subject that is being actively explored in contemporary academic literature. In particular, the works of Mergel, Edelmann, and Haug (2019) identify the key aspects of digital transformation in government, including the use of digital platforms for citizen engagement and conflict mediation. Criado and Villodre's (2020) analysis of the application of social media and digital platforms in the provision of public services and in involving citizens in decision-making processes in European countries is directly relevant to the topic of digital mediation. Meijer (2018) expounds on the notion of public value management, underscoring the significance of openness, transparency, and interactivity in government-citizen relations. These elements are intricately intertwined with the efficacy of digital mediation. In a similar vein, Zavattaro, French, and Mohanty (2015) proposed a model for the management of social media in local communities that incorporates mediation and public consultation mechanisms within digital environments. A significant proportion of the research focuses on the co-creation of public services through digital platforms, a concept that has been extensively studied by Lember, Brandsen, and Tõnurist (2019). The research indicates that the integration of citizens in admini- strative decision-making processes through digital channels contributes to the mitigation of social tensions and the enhancement of trust in public institutions. A key area of focus is adapting digital tools for conflict resolution in crisis conditions, such as the ongoing pandemic or armed conflicts. The pandemic acted as a powerful catalyst for the development of digital mediation (Shamanska, 2021) as the need for remote communication led to the rapid growth of online consultation and mediation platforms. In this context, significant attention is given to trust in digital platforms, especially in conditions of information warfare and widespread manipulation on social media. Ukraine's experience in digital mediation is unique due to the intersection of military conflict, internal displacement, and the urgent need to engage remote communities in decision-making processes (Semenyuk, 2024; Havryliuk, 2021). Research by Ukrainian scholars (Lopatchenko, 2019; Maistrenko, 2023) has confirmed that the use of digital platforms in public administration significantly enhances communication effectiveness between authorities and citizens, particularly in resolving social conflicts. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 138 Vol. 11 No. 3, 2025 This article proposes a comprehensive approach to evaluating the effectiveness of digital mediation tools. This approach builds on international best practices (Meijer, 2015; Criado et al., 2013) and has been adapted to Ukrainian realities, taking into account the specifics of regional policy and the institutional environment (Romanenko, 2023). The development of digital mediation indices facilitates an objective evaluation of platform performance, encompassing the level of citizen engagement, the efficacy of mediation processes, and participant satisfaction. A thorough review of extant literature reveals a vibrant progression within the international academic Figure 1. Bibliometric map of scientific publications on digital mediation and digital platforms in public administration (Connected Papers, 2024) community concerning the utilisation of digital platforms for the facilitation of conflict resolution and citizen engagement. In order to systematise the existing scientific contributions, a bibliometric map was constructed in order to visualise key scholarly publications focused on digital mediation and digital interaction between citizens and public authorities. As illustrated in Figure 1, the network structure of interconnections among key academic publications dedicated to the issues of digital platforms, electronic participation, and digital mediation within the public administration system is presented. The publication by Musiatowicz-Podbial (2024) is at the centre of the Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 139 Vol. 11 No. 3, 2025 network. It consolidates findings from previous research and proposes a systematic approach to evaluating the impact of digital platforms on civic engagement and conflict resolution. The map highlights significant connections between studies examining the digital transformation of public administration (Fukumoto, 2018; Bryson, 2014; Meijer, 2018), the use of social media for public consultations (Zavattaro et al., 2015), and selected studies assessing the effectiveness of digital platforms (Cordella, 2019; Styrin, 2021). This demonstrates that the topic of digital mediation is embedded within the broader discourse of e-governance and digital participation, providing a methodological foundation for further research in the Ukrainian context. 3. Methodology A comprehensive set of research methods was employed to thoroughly analyse the application of digital mediation tools across various countries, assess the current state of online mediation implementation within Ukraine's public administration system, and develop approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of such tools. The following methods were applied: A comparative analysis is employed in order to examine the practices of implementing digital mediation tools in public administration systems in a variety of countries, including Estonia, Germany, Canada, Singapore and Ukraine. A particular emphasis was placed on the integration of digital platforms into overarching e-governance systems, the extent of citizen participation in online mediation processes, and the institutional support for these initiatives. A content analysis was conducted to study the functionalities and content of online platforms used for public consultations, conflict resolution and dialogue within public governance. The analysis focused on the platforms' functional capabilities, level of interactivity, the availability of tools for recording agreements, and feedback mechanisms. A sociological survey (n = 200) was carried out among representatives of local communities, mediators and public administration officials. The survey aimed to assess participants' awareness of digital mediation tools, their willingness to engage in online mediation procedures, their trust in digital platforms, and the key barriers to implementing digital conflict resolution mechanisms. Mathematical modelling was used to evaluate the effectiveness of digital mediation tools. A system of indicators and indices was employed for this purpose. This approach enables a quantitative assessment of accessibility, outcomes and overall efficiency. To assess the effectiveness of implementing digital mediation tools, three key indices were calculated: 1. Index of Digital Mediation Accessibility (IDM) Table 1 Comparative analysis of research methods on digital mediation in public administration Criterion / Method Comparative analysis Content analysis Survey Mathematical modelling Objective Identify differences and similarities in national approaches to digital mediation Study the functionality and quality of online platforms Assess user awareness, trust, and readiness to engage in digital mediation Quantitatively evaluate the accessibility, effectiveness, and efficiency of digital mediation Object of analysis Practices in Estonia, Germany, Canada, Singapore, and Ukraine Online platforms for consultations, conflict resolution, and public dialogues 200 respondents (community members, mediators, public officials) Indicators and indices measuring performance and impact Focus Integration into e-governance, citizen participation, institutional support Platform features, interactivity, feedback tools Awareness, trust, willingness to participate, identification of barriers Formal assessment based on measurable criteria Data type Qualitative comparative data Semi-quantitative and qualitative data from digital platforms Primary sociological data from questionnaires Quantitative data based on models and formulas Advantages Enables adoption of best international practices Reveals real-world platform capabilities Captures human perspectives and behavioral insights Provides objective, evidence-based assessment Limitations May overlook cultural or legal specificities Dependent on platform data availability Limited sample, potential response bias Requires complex model development and data validation Role in research Provides a broad international perspective Analyzes practical tools in the national context Identifies user-related factors and implementation challenges Supports policy recommendations with numerical justification Source: compiled by the authors based on (Criado, Villodre, 2020; Meijer, 2018; Lember, Brandsen, Tõnurist, 2019; Zavattaro, French, Mohanty, 2015; Lopatchenko, 2019; Maistrenko, 2023) Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 140 Vol. 11 No. 3, 2025 This index reflects the percentage of participants in the mediation process who engaged in discussions and conflict resolution through digital formats. IDM U U online total � �100%, where: • Uonline – the number of participants involved through digital platforms; • Utotal – the total number of participants in the mediation process. 2. Index of Digital Mediation Effectiveness (IEM) This index shows the proportion of social conflicts that were successfully resolved using digital tools, compared to the total number of conflicts where digital mediation was used. IEM C C resolved total � �100%, where: • Cresolved – the number of conflicts successfully resolved through digital platforms; • Ctotal – the total number of conflicts in which digital mediation tools were used. 3. Composite Digital Mediation Index (CEM) This is a comprehensive indicator that combines the measures of accessibility, effectiveness, and participant satisfaction within the mediation process. Satisfaction is represented by ISM (Index of Stakeholder Satisfaction), calculated based on survey results. CEM IDM IEM ISM � � � 3 . Where: • IDM – Index of Digital Mediation Accessibility; • IEM – Index of Digital Mediation Effectiveness; • ISM – Index of Stakeholder Satisfaction (based on survey results evaluating user experience with digital mediation platforms). IDM – Index of Digital Mediation Accessibility IEM – Index of Digital Mediation Effectiveness ISM – Index of Stakeholder Satisfaction CEM – Composite Digital Mediation Index Figure 2. Indices for evaluating the effectiveness of digital mediation in public administration Source: developed by the authors based on sources (Meijer, 2018; Criado, Sandoval-Almazan, Gil-Garcia, 2013; Stadniichuk, 2024; Havryliuk, 2021) The present study proposes a composite index-based approach to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of digital mediation tools in resolving social conflicts within the public administration system. The approach under discussion involves the calculation of three core indicators: the Index of Digital Mediation Accessibility (IDM), the Index of Digital Mediation Effectiveness (IEM), and the Index of Stakeholder Satisfaction (ISM). The overall assessment of the effectiveness of digital mediation is presented through the Composite Digital Mediation Index (CEM), which integrates all three components. The figure illustrates the logical sequence of forming the Composite Digital Mediation Index (CEM). The initial step in this process is the assessment of digital accessibility (IDM), which reflects the proportion of conflict participants engaged through digital platforms. The subsequent stage of the research is the calculation of the effectiveness index (IEM), which indicates the proportion of conflicts that have been successfully resolved by the utilisation of digital tools. The third component is the satisfaction index (ISM), which is derived from participant evaluations regarding the usability, transparency, and effectiveness of digital mediation. The final stage of the process is the formation of the CEM, which provides an aggregated quantitative measure of the overall effectiveness of digital mediation procedures. 4. Results and Discussion The utilisation of digital technologies in the mediation of social conflicts within the public administration system commenced at a considerably later juncture than their employment in legal or business mediation. In the domain of legal mediation and commercial dispute resolution, terms such as Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), e-mediation, and online mediation have been firmly established. These refer to practices of resolving disputes through email communication, Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 141 Vol. 11 No. 3, 2025 audio and video conferencing, and chat-based interactions. The advent of online mediation practices can be traced back to the mid-1990s, and even at the inception of their implementation, several limitations were identified. These included the inability to resolve all conflicts effectively in a fully online format, the absence of personal contact, unequal technological accessi- bility among participants, and potential risks to information confidentiality. Nevertheless, despite these constraints, professionals in the fields of mediation and conflict resolution also recognise a number of advantages to digital formats. In particular, negotiations conducted via email or other text-based platforms can, in some cases, be more effective when parties are unable to meet in person for objective reasons. Such formats have been demonstrated to facilitate extended periods of reflection for each participant, thereby enabling the formulation of considered responses and, by extension, the mitigation of emotional tension. Moreover, the absence of direct contact between the parties in question can serve to enhance the perception of the mediator as a neutral actor, thereby increasing the level of trust placed in the mediation process. Digital mediation facilitates the comprehensive preservation of communication records, thereby enhancing transparency and enabling subsequent analysis of the conflict resolution process. Another aspect often cited as a disadvantage of digital negotiations is the lack of non-verbal communication, which can, in certain cases, have a positive effect. In complex conflicts, heightened emotions and an inability to maintain a constructive tone during face-to-face interactions can create additional obstacles to reaching an agreement. However, in written communication, the focus is on the content of the messages rather than their emotional tone or body language. In Ukraine, the use of digital tools to mediate social conflicts within the public administration system only began relatively recently. Although examples of using online communication to resolve legal and business disputes emerged before the 2010s, digital formats were only widely adopted for mediating social conflicts in the public sector after 2014 amid large-scale socio- political crises, Russian military aggression and growing domestic tensions. The need to involve citizens from different regions, including those from temporarily occupied territories and frontline communities, in discussions and conflict resolution was a key driver of the digitalisation of mediation processes and dialogue platforms. Online formats, such as videoconferencing platforms (e.g., Zoom and Google Meet), social media and specialised public consultation platforms, became essential channels of communication between the authorities, citizens and civil society organisations. A significant milestone was the launch of initiatives aimed at fostering a culture of dialogue and mediation within local communities. Since 2015, several projects supported by international organisations such as the OSCE, UNDP and USAID have been implemented in Ukraine. These projects aim to strengthen the capacities of mediators, develop public dialogue infrastructure and integrate digital tools for conflict-related discussions, particularly in communities facing high levels of social tension. Particular attention was given to developing online platforms for public consultations, which allow citizens to voice their opinions on key societal issues. Tools such as VzaemoDIA, the government’s official consultation platform, have become an integral part of the public administration ecosystem, facilitating the early identification and resolution of conflicts through dialogue. The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2020, further accelerated the digitalisation of mediation and social conflict resolution processes. Most meetings, consultations, and discussions moved online, necessitating the adaptation of mediation methods to the new digital context. Concurrently, social media's role as a platform for public discourse, issue deliberation, and conflict discussion has escalated, giving rise to both novel opportunities and fresh challenges pertaining to manipulation, disinformation, and targeted information campaigns. A salient feature of the Ukrainian experience is the active involvement of civil society in the mediation of social conflict at various levels, ranging from local communities to national dialogue platforms. Local government online platforms have played a crucial role in providing citizens with information, as well as in collecting proposals, conducting surveys, and facilitating discussions on sensitive issues. Today, digital mediation tools in Ukraine are gradually being incorporated into the wider public administration and social conflict resolution system. This includes specialised dialogue platforms for communication between the government and its citizens, algorithms that analyse public sentiment on social media, and early conflict warning systems based on big data analytics. However, the process of digitalising mediation in Ukraine is accompanied by several challenges, including unequal access to digital technologies across regions, insufficient digital competence among local government representatives, and issues related to ensuring confidentiality and data security during online mediation processes. A critical concern remains the legitimacy of decisions made as a result of online mediation and their subsequent implementation within the public administration system. Globally, there is an increasing adoption of digital tools for the resolution of social conflicts and the Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 142 Vol. 11 No. 3, 2025 engagement of the public in decision-making processes. These tools are instrumental in cultivating a novel culture of dialogue between governments and citizens, thereby fostering transparency, mitigating social tensions, and enhancing the overall effectiveness of public administration. Experience in several countries shows that using digital platforms for mediation can significantly speed up conflict resolution, ensure party positions are documented, and create a digital footprint, increasing accountability for all parties involved. The table below summarises international practices regarding the implementation of digital mediation tools. A thorough review of international experience suggests that digital mediation tools have become an integral component of contemporary public administration in the context of digital transformation. The utilisation of online platforms for the purpose of conflict resolution has been demonstrated to contribute to a reduction in administrative costs. Furthermore, it has been shown to ensure equal access to mediation procedures for all population groups, including those inhabiting remote areas. A considerable number of successful digital platforms are founded on the principles of openness, transparency, and integration with other components of digital governance. This enables the rapid mobilisation of additional resources to address complex or escalating conflicts. Concomitantly, the implementation of digital mediation necessitates the establishment of reliable mechanisms for participant identification, personal data protection, and safeguarding against manipulation by specific interest groups. Ukraine's experience with the VzaemoDIA platform demonstrates the potential for expanding its functionality to support online mediation, particularly in cases of socially significant conflicts at the level Table 2 Comparative analysis of digital mediation tools and citizen engagement in public administration systems across different countries Country Tool Key features Estonia e-Mediation A platform integrated into the e-government system for online dispute resolution, providing citizens and businesses with easy access to mediation procedures. Ukraine VzaemoDIA A platform for online consultations between citizens and government agencies, used to discuss regulations and resolve socially significant conflicts. Germany LiquidFeedback A digital tool for engaging citizens in decision-making processes in local councils and political parties; supports elements of mediation in collective discussions. Singapore e-Conciliation An online platform for pre-trial resolution of commercial and social disputes, integrated with state electronic justice services. Canada Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) The world's first online platform for resolving minor civil disputes, combining the functions of mediation, arbitration and binding decisions. Netherlands Rechtwijzer 2.0 An online platform for independent resolution of disputes between citizens with the participation of online consultants and mediators; integrated into the legal aid system. Source: constructed by the authors based on (Rubryka, 2024, May 28; Shamanska, 2021; World Bank, 2021) of local self-government. In the context of wartime challenges and the urgent need for territorial community recovery, the development of digital mediation tools may become one of the key areas for reforming Ukraine's public administration system. An analysis of the current state of digital transformation in Ukraine's public administration reveals a gradual increase in public trust towards digital government services, electronic communication platforms, and online civic engagement tools. Research conducted in several Ukrainian cities (Zhytomyr, Nikopol, Chervonohrad, Chernivtsi) revealed that 78% of surveyed citizens expressed trust in state electronic services, recognising them as transparent and user-friendly (Rubryka, 2024). This phenomenon exemplifies the adaptation of Ukrainian society to digital formats of interaction with public authorities, thereby engendering favourable conditions for the implementation of digital mediation mechanisms in public administration. Studies conducted during the pandemic revealed that Ukrainian citizens had increased trust in information disseminated via social networks, particularly from acquaintances or community leaders, compared to traditional media sources (Shamanska, 2021). This dynamic has given rise to a novel form of digital trust, one that is oriented not only towards institutions but also towards horizontal communication networks. This is of particular importance in the context of social conflict resolution and public dialogue. Notwithstanding the encouraging developments, the issue of digital inequality remains salient. Research indicates that between 20% and 25% of Ukrainian citizens possess sub-optimal digital skills or lack the fundamental competencies required for effective participation in complex online processes, including mediation procedures (World Bank, 2021). This situation underscores the necessity for the development of bespoke training programmes that are designed to Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 143 Vol. 11 No. 3, 2025 enhance digital literacy among both citizens and public administration representatives (Fig. 3). The extant, albeit fragmentary, data suggest that Ukrainian society is gradually gaining experience in constructive digital interaction, thereby laying the foundation for the further implementation of digital mediation tools in the resolution of social conflicts. However, the efficacy of these processes is contingent upon the resolution of the issue of digital inequality, the establishment of trust in online mediation as a legitimate conflict resolution mechanism, and the implementation of robust cybersecurity and data protection frameworks. The present study assesses the effectiveness of digital mediation tools within the public administration system. The authors of this study conducted 21 74 3,8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 LACK OF DIGITAL SKILLS WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN MEDIATION TRUST IN DIGITAL MEDIATION Percentage or Average Score,% Figure 3. Assessment of public attitudes towards digital mediation in Ukraine’s public administration system Source: calculated and visualised by the authors using original survey data and supported by (Meijer, 2015; Criado, Sandoval-Almazan, Gil-Garcia, 2013; Stadniichuk, 2024; Havryliuk, 2021) a comprehensive analysis of data obtained through content analysis of national and international digital mediation platforms, as well as survey data collected from representatives of local communities, public administration officials, and practicing mediators from the Kherson and Kirovohrad regions of Ukraine. The proposed index system facilitates multidimensional evaluation of the accessibility of digital mediation, the effectiveness of its procedures, and the level of participant satisfaction. The figure presents the summary of the results of the authors' research, which includes the calculation of a system of indices for assessing the effectiveness of digital mediation in Ukraine. The Index of Stakeholder Satisfaction (ISM) received the highest score at 83%, indicating a high level of trust in digital 78% 65% 83% 75% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% IDM - DIGITAL ACCESSIBILITY INDEX IEM - DIGITAL MEDIATION EFFECTIVENESS INDEX ISM - PARTICIPANT SATISFACTION INDEX CEM - COMPREHENSIVE DIGITAL MEDIATION INDEX Value,% Figure 4. Results of the evaluation of digital mediation effectiveness according to IDM, IEM, ISM, and CEM indices (based on the authors' research) Source: calculated and visualised by the authors using original survey data and supported by (Meijer, 2015; Criado, Sandoval-Almazan, Gil-Garcia, 2013; Stadniichuk, 2024; Havryliuk, 2021) Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 144 Vol. 11 No. 3, 2025 mediation tools, user comfort with digital platforms, and a perception of procedural transparency. The Index of Digital Mediation Accessibility (IDM) reached 78%, reflecting sufficient engagement of participants with online platforms and general accessibility of digital mediation tools. Conversely, the Index of Digital Mediation Effectiveness (IEM) registered at 65%, indicating the existence of specific organisational and technological impediments that constrain the comprehensive efficacy of digital conflict resolution methodologies. The Composite Digital Mediation Index (CEM), a composite indicator of digital mediation practices in the Ukrainian public administration context, was calculated at 75%, indicating a relatively high level of effectiveness. 5. Conclusions The study of contemporary approaches to using digital mediation tools to resolve social conflicts within the public administration system confirms that digitalising mediation procedures is an integral part of transforming communication mechanisms between governments and citizens in the 21st century. Digital platforms offer new possibilities for swift conflict resolution, transparent dialogue and the involvement of a broad spectrum of stakeholders in finding mutually agreeable solutions. A comparative analysis of practices in various countries (Estonia, Germany, Canada, Singapore and Ukraine) shows that successfully integrating digital mediation tools into public administration depends on several factors. These include the level of digital literacy in the population, the willingness of public institutions to engage in open dialogue, and the presence of a legal and regulatory framework governing online mediation procedures. Technical infrastructure and the cybersecurity of digital platforms are also important. A survey of local community representatives, public officials and mediators revealed a generally positive attitude towards digital mediation practices. 74% of respondents said they would be willing to participate in online mediation, and the average level of trust in digital platforms for conflict resolution was 3.8 out of 5. However, 21% of respondents reported having insufficient digital skills to participate fully in such processes, highlighting the issue of digital inequality and the need for appropriate training programmes to address it. The proposed methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of digital mediation tools is based on three indices: the Index of Digital Mediation Accessibility (IDM), the Index of Digital Mediation Effectiveness (IEM), and the Index of Stakeholder Satisfaction (ISM). This provides a comprehensive assessment of digital platform performance in the context of social conflict resolution. The results of the study indicated that the Composite Digital Mediation Index (CEM) was calculated at 75%, suggesting a relatively high level of effectiveness of the implemented digital mechanisms. Thus, digital mediation tools demonstrate considerable potential for resolving social conflicts and promoting sustainable development of territorial communities (hromadas). To increase the effectiveness of these tools, it is necessary to: Integrate them with other components of the e-governance system; develop standardised procedures for conducting online mediation and public consultations; ensure a high level of cybersecurity and protection of participants’ personal data; enhance digital literacy among citizens and public officials; establish monitoring mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of digital platforms based on key performance indicators (KPIs). The implementation of digital mediation tools in Ukraine, particularly in wartime conditions and during the recovery of de-occupied territories, will contribute to timely conflict resolution. It will also foster a culture of dialogue, strengthen public trust in government institutions, and ensure transparency in decision- making at both local and national levels. References: Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002 Criado, J. I., & Villodre, J. (2020). Delivering public services through social media in European local governments. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 482-493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13167 Meijer, A. J. (2018). Public value management and the responsiveness of government. Public Management Review, 20(5), 682–699. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1320047 Chatfield, A. T., & Reddick, C. G. (2018). A framework for social media use in e-government: Reviewing the literature. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 704–712. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.07.003 Lember, V., Brandsen, T., & Tõnurist, P. (2019). The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1665–1686. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14719037.2019.1619807 Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 371(1987), 20120382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382 Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 145 Vol. 11 No. 3, 2025 Zavattaro, S. M., French, P. E., & Mohanty, S. D. (2015). Social media governance: Towards a framework for local government. American Review of Public Administration, 45(6), 657–674. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013504128 Meijer, A. (2015). Government transparency in historical perspective: From the ancient regime to open data in the Netherlands. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(3), 189–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01900692.2014.934837 Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013). Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 319–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.10.003 Janssen, M., & van den Hoven, J. (2015). Big and open linked data (BOLD) in government: A challenge to transparency and privacy? Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 363–368. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.giq.2015.08.002 Rubryka. (2024, May 28). 78% of Ukrainians trust government e-services. Rubryka. Available at: https://rubryka.com/article/derzhavnyh-elektronnyh-poslug/ Shamanska, I. (2021). Trust in online media during the COVID-19 pandemic. Open Data, (9), 74-86. Available at: https://ela.kpi.ua/bitstream/123456789/46395/1/OD-2021-9_s74-86.pdf World Bank. (2021). Digital transformation in Ukraine: Challenges and opportunities. World Bank Group. Available at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099845123212135259/pdf/ P1748170aa0f800b5092f707495ce36a5fa.pdf Meijer, A. (2015). Government transparency in historical perspective: From the ancient regime to open data in the Netherlands. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(3), 189–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01900692.2014.934837 Lopatchenko, I. M. (2019). Mediation as a modern technology in resolving conflicts in public administration. Law and Public Administration, (2), 231–235. Maistrenko, K. M. (2023). Mediation as a modern technology for conflict resolution in public administration system. Investments: Practice and Experience, (5), 120–123. Stadniichuk, R. (2024). The role of digital technologies in enhancing the effectiveness of public policy mechanisms for social conflict management in Ukraine. Bulletin of Khmelnytskyi National University. Series: Economic Sciences, 326(1), 183–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30838/ep.198.253-257 Kuziv, M. I. (2020). The role of mediation in conflict resolution. Collection of Scientific Works of V. H. Korolenko Pereiaslav National Pedagogical University, (10), 85–89. Semeniuk, O. V. (2018). Mediation as an alternative method of conflict resolution and its prospects in Ukraine. Young Scientist, (4), 171–174. Havryliuk, O. M. (2021). Introduction of mediation as a mechanism for conflict resolution resulting from military actions in eastern Ukraine. Public Administration and Regional Development, (5), 92–97. Semeniuk, O. V. (2024). Online mediation as an instrument for resolving conflicts among refugees and internally displaced persons amid full-scale war in Ukraine. Law and Public Administration, (3), 123–128. Romanenko, Ye. O. (2023). Mechanism of mediation in the system of public administration. Public Administration: Theory and Practice, (2), 45–50. Yankovoi, R., Stadniichuk, R., Zhosan, H., Garafonova, O., Biriukov, I. (2024). Innovative transformation of a financial institution in the context of digitalisation and its impact on social conflict management. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 2(55), 75–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55643/ fcaptp.2.55.2024.4386 Received on: 15th of May, 2025 Accepted on: 27th of June, 2025 Published on: 24th of July, 2025