They don't need to be. They are automata with emergent behavior independent from the individual humans comprising them - paperclip maximizers in a very literal sense. The overly-simplistic "corporate decisions are just human decisions" take entirely ignores corporate policies, material interests, and countless other drivers of corporate decisionmaking with zero dependence on any particular actual human.

And those policies came from...?

And those material interests relate to...?

...the ether? Jesus Christ? The "Invisible Hand"? The void?

Those policies were written by people at the direction of people to be given to people to do because some people are interested in achieving that goal.

And those policies continue to be in effect long after any of their authors or beneficiaries have left or otherwise ceased to be authors or beneficiaries - as highlighted in the part of my comment immediately following that which you quoted.

People being involved at one point says nothing about their continued involvement or about the eventual autonomy of the thing with which they were once involved - just like how any person's decisionmaking is independent from that of one's constituent cells, and from one's parents and their constituent cells. The interests of the creation can and do diverge from the interests of the creators.

Your argument is like saying "we've already solved biology -- it's physics all the way down!" Except, it's not. The information-processing and entropy-generating capacities of biological organisms surpasses those that would be expected from a purely physical perspective.

Specifically in the case of companies, they're generally deliberately organized such that specific humans in the leadership/ownership are not individually responsible for decisions, otherwise it would be easier to pierce the corporate veil. Hence diffuse responsibility, meetings and meeting minutes, reams of pages justifying decisions, etc - what we commonly know as "bureaucracy", with a life of its own. Each human-reasoning-unit only focuses on some very small part of the company's behavior, adds their own personal incentives to not rock the boat, and then rolls the shit downhill.

So no, it doesn't sense to pigeonhole company behavior as just "human behavior", especially when individual humans in the system often would very much like to choose differently, but for all the incentives lined up against them.