stakeholders?

As I understand the term "stakeholder" it was originally introduced to help powerless individuals who suffer the harmful consequences of corporate decision-making and stockholders (among others).... It allows us to say: we should consider not only the shareholders, but also, more broadly the stake holders--those who have a stake in the business deal--people who are regularly excluded. (If I live downstream from a polluting industry, I am a stakeholder in that industry's activities....)

(AKA stakeholders are victims of the in-principle unrecognizable side-effects of doing capitalist business--"in principle unrecognizable"= within capitalist economics...)

Yet, in its contemporary usage, the meaning has been twisted to suggest that the interests of wealthy corporations should be given equal weight to the interests of powerless individuals.... as if it would be so unfair to silence those mighty tyrannies....
A victory for the ruling class...
If I've read it correctly, the link below contains precisely such a perverse usage....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/02/blindness-drug-avastin-nhs-nice

Not to mention the fact that behavior by the drug company in question is deplorable...

(you might say: the link takes you to "The Guardian", a so-called "liberal" newspaper.....)