Some argue that this is due to the neutrality of human rights, and the fact that a person who chooses to exercise his right to incorporate as a company should not be harmed (see: Vincent S.J. Buccola, "Corporate Rights and Organizational Neutrality", 101 Iowa L. Rev., 499 (2016) ). However, as I will clarify below, this argument is problematic when it comes to large companies and international corporations that are no longer identified with the founders at all. Then we must ask again whether it is appropriate to grant them rights, and if so, what rights and to what extent.
There are also reasons for denying certain rights to corporations. The first is that when we are dealing with large companies, huge companies, which are sometimes held by governments, at least as far as their economic power is concerned, it is doubtful whether they should be granted the rights that originally stemmed from the weakness of the individual vis-à-vis the government. Therefore, there are those who argue that large corporations should be treated as strong as the government, as opposed to human beings, and not equated, in terms of rights, with the weaker individual (the situation will be different when it comes to individual companies, but then it will be possible to use the doctrine of lifting the veil for the benefit of the corporation). In order to grant the corporation affiliated with its owner the rights given to the latter (as was done, for example, other municipal applications 717/74 Delek - The Israeli Fuel Company in a Tax Appeal v. Ramat Aviv Gas Station Ltd., IsrSC 29(1) 799, regarding reserve service. See also in this regard: Haviv-Segal, Companies, ibid., at p. 290).
Another reason for denying corporations human rights is with regard to business companies whose purpose is to promote economic rights, which will lead to the advancement of these at the expense of the rights of consumers, employees, etc. Christofer Harding, Uta Kohl & Naomi Salmon, Human Rights in the Market Place: The Exploitation of Rights Protection by Economic Actors (Markets and the Law), 45 (2008), discuss the following: