A. Governments change rapidly so this statement doesn't strengthen or weaken the argument.
B. It does not relate to the argument of losing power or retaining power, but talks about how an institution is viewed. Obviously, its very weakly related to the argument.
C. Is correct BUT it does not demonstrate a very clear relation between social responsibility and power erosion. It means some institutions lose power rapidly, others slowly, and there's no correlation here. Its not possible to negate the author's argument effectively with this.
D. Negates the author's argument partially, by saying every business would fail. This negates author's contention that to retain power the institutes should take care of social responsibility (because they'd not retain power but fail eventually). But since it doesnt make a distinction between losing power when socially responsible and vice versa, doesn't provide a strong rebuttal of the author's argument.
E. is correct because it states cases to negate author's strongest contention that to keep power use it socially - that even using it socially, institutions have lost power.
Thus I'd go with E.
Can we please have the OA now?
Who says elephants can't dance?