Any business is completely dependent upon the smooth running of its system, and almost every element of its system is usually accessible, exposed, and vulnerable, and, of course, inter-connected with other systems.
Corporations exist for, and by legal definition are solely dedicated to the pursuit of maximum profit. This being the case, influencing them is a straightforward matter of cost-benefit analysis.
If you can inflict loss beyond what they can absorb, they will react.
There are innumerable ways to do this, both by direct loss, and by incurring increased expense.
If you are able to do that, and if a corporation understands that responding to your demands, or otherwise retreating from your country, are the only way to avoid these losses, according to corporate law, they will be legally obligated to do so.
Furthermore, any type of overt targeting of a corporation, i.e. making it publicly clear by one way or another that the company is the focus of a disruption campaign, will negatively impact the value of that company’s shares on the stock market.
Such a drop in the share price will result in pressure from the company’s shareholders to take action to undo the damage. If significant monetary loss can be inflicted upon either the company’s actual profit margin, or upon the value of its stock, it is predictable that the company will either abandon its operations and investment in an area, or else, concede to demands in exchange for an end to the disruption.