> now have to add security so it doesn't happen a second time

You assume that that cost is going to be borne by the corporation building the facility and not by the general public through lobbying to protect construction sites from mischief (mischief in the legal sense, which in many countries is an indictable offence).

In most democracies, private security generally has to defer to the police for anything that involves actual violence beyond detaining people until the police show up. From that point on, it's up to the police and the courts to deal with the matter.

> the overall attractiveness of building a datacenter in the region go down.

There are two directions this idea can go:

- a reduction in the rule of law by normalizing the idea that it is OK for citizens to damage otherwise legal and permitted construction - insurance costs go up for everyone because the country's government has demonstrated that protection of private property is not one of its priorities.

- an increased police presence / crackdown against protesters. The region remains a competitive venue.

If a country demonstrates the first option, this in turn leaves the corporation with two options:

- move on to a jurisdiction that does respect private property using the police

- move on to a jurisdiction where private security has more latitude to "deal with" protesters

The most likely bottom line impact that this will have, from my perspective: insurance premiums will go up a bit and everything else will stay pretty much the same. Most democratic countries will step in and protect property owners (yay property, sales, and income tax). Governments and courts don't generally look too favourably on protestors who do actual physical damage to people and companies going about their lawful business.