Human rights tend to be considered in such terms as the sanctity of the human, the importance of life and the preservation of dignity. Human rights commentators see a common thread in and reason for these justifications, namely that the beneficiaries of human rights are humans.

Recently companies have begun to make claims under the Human Rights Act 1998. This is on the grounds that since a company is a ‘legal personality’ with rights including entering contracts and being sued, it should benefit from the rights afforded to other legal personalities. Some human rights groups have termed these ‘corporate human rights violations’, and the phenomenon seems to be increasingly frequent.

Last week two hedge funds (RAB Special Situations and SRM Global Master Fund) sued on the grounds of a violation to their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions caused by the nationalisation of Northern Rock. BAA is also considering a claim against the Competition Commission based on the breakup of the airport company. Legal publishing company Sweet and Maxwell report that 6% of human rights cases in 2007 concerned taxation, with a further 3% brought by large companies.

It is uncontested ground that companies act with ‘legal personalities’ in order to enter contracts, control liability and be sued. However, companies have two marked differences from people that are relevant when considering whether they should be afforded the same status as humans.

Firstly, companies will never be imprisoned or face similar criminal sanctions. A company may lose stock, but it will generally never have to consider factors beyond the economic. Secondly, a recent study showed that corporations, if taken literally as people, are sociopathic by standard definitions, showing no regard for other people, no attachment to honesty and no remorse. This illustrates that businesses are not the same as people, nor treated as such in law.