Yes, it is, it's simply more subtle. If the powerful elite decided that something needs to be done, it would be done. They don't need any evidence, the approval of the people or other countries.
If the US wanted to slaughter every single Mexican, they would simply do it. Even if every single non-US man, women, and child banded together and demanded the opposite, it would happen nonetheless. That was the case with the Iraq war.
The US can detain any citizen and hold them for an indefinite amount of time without evidence or trial thanks to their "war on terror", and then torture them for information. This has included children. I am sure I don't need to go into details about Guantanamo Bay.
If a multibillion company decided it wanted to dig for oil, it would dig for the oil. They would bribe every politician in their way, bend every law that opposes them, buy out the media to block the spread of information.
Slavery in the US ended not because of activism, but because the north replaced the need for slaves with factories. Had the north been dependent on slavery as well, people would still be slaves. Heck, some companies still depend on slavery to this day, it's simply outsourced. Ask those children in China/India how many wonders anti-slave activism has achieved.
It's the same thing with fossil fuels. Do you honestly believe that people are searching for alternative energy sources because of activism? Or is it because the oil reserves are drying up and the price of fossil fuels continues to rise?
Activism has only ever been a small contributor in a big game. It helps, but rarely does it decide the outcome of the game. There are exceptions of course, like Ghandi.