This HRIA draws upon the human rights concepts of severity (de昀椀ned as scope, scale, and remediability) and likelihood to inform a prioritization of impacts: • Scope—The number of people affected by the harm. • Scale—The seriousness of the harm for those affected. • Remediability—The extent to which remedy will restore those affected to the same or equivalent position before the harm. • Likelihood—The probability and/or frequency of the adverse human rights impact occurring in the next 昀椀ve years. Factors involved in an assessment of likelihood include whether (or how frequently) the impact has happened in the past or is happening today, whether (or how frequently) similarly situated companies have been involved with a similar impact, and whether the impact has been foreseen during research for the assessment, including during discussions of future trends. This HRIA makes recommendations for the Tech Coalition to address adverse human rights impacts using factors contained in Principle 19 of the UNGPs: • Attribution—How closely would the Tech Coalition be connected to the human rights impact? › Caused the impact—The Tech Coalition should take the necessary steps to cease or prevent the impact. › Contributed to the impact—The Tech Coalition should take the necessary steps to cease or prevent its contribution and use its leverage to mitigate any remaining impact to the greatest extent possible. › Directly linked to the impact through its products, services, or operations arising from its business relationships—The Tech Coalition should determine action based on factors such as the extent of leverage over the entity concerned and the severity of the abuse. • Leverage—How much ability would the Tech Coalition have to affect change in the wrongful practices of an entity that “causes” or “contributes to” the harm? How much ability does the Tech Coalition have to seek modi昀椀cation of or challenge the wrongful practice? How can the Tech Coalition increase leverage? Key Observations BSR’s analysis of the human rights impacts and appropriate actions to address them were in昀氀uenced by the following observations: • The Lantern Program has the potential to 昀椀ll a key gap in the industry’s approach to child safety and protection. Currently, tech companies primarily address OCSEA risks via individual actions; however, research suggests that OCSEA perpetrators are increasingly operating across multiple platforms. This cross-platform nature of the crime necessitates a collaborative approach. By addressing this critical need, the Lantern Program aims to help companies address some of the most severe adverse human rights impacts associated with their platforms. • Insights gleaned through the Lantern Program can be valuable for broader efforts to 昀椀ght OCSEA and protect digital rights. Trends in OCSEA are constantly changing, and stakeholders may 昀椀nd it challenging to stay up to speed on all the ways the crime is shifting and evolving. By enabling the identi昀椀cation and dissemination of OCSEA-related trends and insights, the Lantern Program could be a valuable resource to stakeholders (e.g., civil society, companies, policymakers, academics) working to combat OCSEA globally. BSR TECH COALITION HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4