Thats pure hyperbole. There are plenty of "corporations" who fall outside that characterization- ie; Patagonia- they may not rule the World but they also do not fit your categorization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia_(clothing)Patagonia commits 1% of their total sales or 10% of their profit, whichever is more, to environmental groups.
Moreover, shareholders are not without opinions and their activism can effect change as well:
Corporations are reflections of society. The idea of Corporate Social Responsibility is gaining momentum and not simply a facade:
http://almostdailybrett.wordpress.c...nsibility-vs-corporate-social-responsibility/Even though the debate is not new, the growing trend in favor of corporate social responsibility over merely adherence to fiduciary duties is gaining speed. For example, David Bach and David Bruce Allen in their 2010 What Every CEO Needs to Know About Nonmarket Strategy offer that non-market strategy recognizes that corporations are social and political entities, not just economic agents.
The exceptions don't discount the rule and I don't buy at all that corporations are a reflection of society. I'm all for a more human face, and whatever social responsibility that can come about, but it is in no way more than a blip in overall corporate culture.
The massive blind and bloated beast of consumerism was not a natural evolution of the species. It was a mutation engineered by the corporate elite to further their own ends at the expense and disregard of the general public.