In honor of Bhopal's 20th anniversary, let's take another look at developments in corporatism.
The WorldChanging site is a wonderful mass of thougthful writing and ideas.
I wrote the following a while back as part of a discussion at WorldChanging; the past year has not made me more optimistic about how things are going.....
This brings a couple of source-material things to mind -- although I'm guessing you are familiar with them, just haven't cited them specifically. First, Bucky Fuller, despite his antagonism toward the fictional "Obnoxico" and its real-world brethren, also seemed to think that transnational companies would become the only viable vehicle (if there were to be any) for worldwide sustainable behavior. Second, the transparency you describe brings to mind the dangers of one-way transparency laid out by David Brin in "The Transparent Society." Who will watch the watchers? I do think that as the technology becomes available, and "the street" finds its uses, the mere fact that watching the watchers is illegal will become just another technical problem to route around.
Finally, a bit of my native cynicism... my experience with most corporations (immortal, no conscience) is that they aren't going to "give" anyone a level playing field, and neither are their "representatives" in government. Out-innovating them only gets you so far. If you are trying to displace an existing behemoth, in very few cases is it really enough to build better mousetraps. There are simply too many structural protections in place. They have managed to make externalizing their costs an integral part of the status quo. Promising developments in sustainable energy, for example, are going to have a hard time staying alive under the proposed US Energy Bill long enough to displace massively subsidized carbon-combustion and nuclear industries.
However, limited liability doesn't mean "no liability," and I think it's increasingly viable (and important) to raise the transaction costs of bad actors enough to provide a bit more level-ness to the field. I don't think it's realistic to think that you can win in the marketplace without taking on the incumbent industries in their legal, legislative, and regulatory lairs. Not because you will win there, but because you must break down at least part of the protective structure they have erected for themselves. Sometimes a good old-fashioned disaster will offer a toehold (e.g., if rising sea level raises the cost of running all those coastal nukes, that gives as good an opportunity for competition to displace them as a strict new regulatory scheme, or a huge liability judgment.)
I think that the day is soon coming that we will see not only "swarm" protests, and (now appearing) swarm politics, but also swarm litigation. The tools are there, the people are there, it's just a matter of applying the tactics in a new arena.
In the recent past, we have seen the need for new legal tools and tactics in the following areas due to increased abuses by : voting rights and elections; IP - media; IP -food supply; IP - drugs and medicines; war crimes; product liability; corporate governance, accountability and shareholder rights; environmental rights; basic constitutional rights (1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment curtailments); freedom of information and openness in government; punitive libel suits against injured consumers; the list goes on and on and on.