They count on the weak regulatory powers of nations to "force them" to blunt the worst effects of their industries. Unfettered, the negative effects of their business practices are likely to hasten a reckoning with the very visible and spectacular damage they would cause. Due to stakeholder obligations, corporations are more or less required to take advantage of the profits that can be made by mass deregulation, but they're also aware it might abruptly cause unrecoverable damage to their business.
Basically, they need governments to regulate them just enough that they aren't deeply and profoundly hated for what they do, can appear to be "responsible" corporate citizens, and can continue to make profits in the near- and long-term, but not so much that it actually meaningfully affects their bottom line. Arguably government regulations, which they basically write themselves through lobbying and other forms of political persuasion, are a critical part of their business model and PR strategy.
It's sort of like if someone regularly rides in the passenger seat (C-suite) of a super nice car (corporation) with an unstable, angry, and dangerous driver (profit-motive responsibility to stakeholders). The passenger likes that they get where they're going faster than everyone else, they ride in a dope car, they have a very comfortable commute, and they like how everyone is jealous of the car when they pass them.
That being said, the passenger doesn't want to die and doesn't want the car destroyed. But, since the driver is insane, it's easier to just always agree with the driver that "speed limits are stupid," "air bags are for pussies," "crumple zones are a Chinese conspiracy," and so on. They don't have to worry about it because the laws governing driving, the regulations governing car design, etc. keep them relatively safe. Sure, the driver pushes the limits and occasionally gets pulled over, but, ultimately, they wear their seatbelts, have airbags, crumple zones, and all the other standard, government regulated safety features of a modern, high-end car.
Then a new president comes in saying all the same things the driver has been saying and says they're going to remove all those "dumb" things like traffic laws, manufacturing guidelines/regulations, and safety features. Suddenly the passenger feels obligated to start trying to either disagree with, and hopefully stop, the president making those changes, or they'll have to disagree, and hopefully stop, the driver taking advantage of them being repealed, or they'll have to do nothing and have a profoundly more dangerous commute with a high chance of death.