Below, we publish the third draft of ?Guidelines for Corporations Operating in Burma?, submitted to ?Civil Society Organizations and Shareholders Addressing Corporations in Burma? by the US Campaign for Burma Committee on SRI at the Unitarian Universalist Association. Organisations with current input on these benchmarks include Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, US Campaign for Burma, AFL-CIO, International Trade Union Congress (ITUC), Freedom House, Asia Foundation, Open Society, and the Conflict Risk Network of United to End Genocide. The title of the statement suggests that some companies have already decided to invest in Burma, following ?rapprochements? with the regime made by the US, Australian and European governments earlier this year. One would have hoped for a more questioning approach by the sponsors. The Guidelines state that the ?absence of law governing the behavior of corporations in Burma…makes it imperative that NGOs, shareholders, and affected parties inside Burma develop a position regarding what companies in Burma should do in order to operate responsibly?. Why not, instead, urge companies not to enter (or re-enter) the country before new and binding government regulations are in place? The authors confine themselves to discussing observance of human (including workers) rights, with only one fleeting mention of environmental and socio-economic issues. However, the latter are huge priorities for many thousands of local people. We?re also told that ??..companies should prepare impact assessment reports on proposed projects in Burma that include impact assessments in the areas of human rights, the environment, gender equality, and poverty…? Fair enough - except that these need be performed only "where appropriate", rather than being stipulated as mandatory. Art of the possible? Similarly, the Campaign urges companies to ?[a]dopt a policy that requires [them to]…seek business partners without connections to the military, drug trade, or questionable human rights practices?. But, again, this is only ?wherever possible?. In contrast, the investment conditions published by the US and UK government, appear to proscribe any forging of commercial links with dubious or criminal domestic parties. It?s unfortunate that, while citing examples of campaigns against foreign corporations operating in Burma, no mention is made of those which have called mining companies specifically to account - notably Ivanhoe-Rio Tinto. See: Wikileaks reveal true nature of Ivanhoe-Rio Tinto?s Burmese deal But the most important question to ask is surely this: might these benchmarks come to substitute for the vital requirement that a truly democratic government introduce its own binding reforms? Until such a government is freely-elected, there?s a clear danger of "corporate creep" into - or even partial takeover - of institutions and regulatory processes which should be firmly under parliamentary control, serving the interests of civil society. [Comment by Nostromo Research, 18 September 2012].