The state in that country was almost nonexistent. Shell had free reign and there was noone to stop them. If Shell would have tried this in europe or the US the state would have stopped them. The protection agains selfish companies is one of the tasks people expect the state to do.

So yes, in that case a bigger state would have helped.

But don't get me wrong, i wouldn't want the state to control everything and i would not want to hand over all control to the state.
The state, in exactly the same way as companies, can grow selfish and corrupt.
The core of the problem is about keeping large organisations in check. They tend to become entities on their own and without firm internal of external guidence they will become spoilt brats that are perfectly capable of destroying themselfs and/or their environment.
The other side of the same problem is that we need these large organisations to have this level of civilization.
What seems to be the best compromise is some form of people controlled structure that makes a set of rules and makes sure everyone keeps themselfs to it. Of course to be able to keep these rules you will need to be able to mobilize a larger enough force...

Another problem is the financial world.
It has given the world a much more complex financial dynamic with derivatives and other risk management toys.
What this has done is push politics into finance, at the same time making it harder for the politic to manage their budgets and putting politicians further away from the people they serve. In the end people get less representation and that is why democracy is failing.
I see this more as a problem with the incentives and reward systems in a capitalistic state than a problem with states themselfs.