On the contrary, it's necessary if corporations can operate internationally and transfer money untaxably between jurisdictions, otherwise the global effective tax rate is that of the lowest country.
What's wrong with that? Countries need to compete just like corporations. Small countries need someway to compete for global talent, and low taxes are a good incentive.
I would be even siding with you slightly if this amounted to actually moving people, facilities and capital to that country.
However, in the modern world, corporations don't just use low taxes to simply route massive amounts of capital through low-tax countries without a net benefit for anyone — they are actually exploiting tax loopholes in different countries' tax laws against each other.
If it doesn't benefit the Dutch, they would (and I understand they have at least attempted to) close the loopholes. For instance, they could require more presence in the country in particular ways: physically, employed citizens, cash in banks, taxes paid, etc.
If the beneficiaries are bribed individuals in various governments, that would be another thing entirely.
But these both clearly benefit Ireland and the Netherlands. Many of the major international corporations in the EU are set up in Ireland. Do you think that would be the case if Ireland couldn't attract them with the better tax offers? Ireland even had a referendum that initially rejected the Lisbon Treaty until Ireland got guarantees from the EU that it wouldn't affect their taxation.
Apple has 137,000 employees of which 80,000 are in the United States and 22,000 are in Europe, and of those 6,000 in Ireland. However, 64% of Apple's sales are (or at least were in 2017) outside the US, which then get funneled to Ireland, despite only housing like 4.3% of Apple's global employees.
They're just shifting money, not talent. Money which is then taxed at a very low rate (Apple International had an effective corporate tax rate of 1% in 2003, which was shrunk down to 0.005% by 2014) and in return doesn't really benefit the people of that country.
In practice, what is done is that big corporations have their headquarters in a few well-developed jurisdictions that have very strong laws to protect their shit (London, New York, etc.) but use shell companies in offshore locations that just offer a mailbox.
I don't have an issue with a bank being based in the Bermudas or anywhere, for example; but in that case the HQ should really be based there. There is the same issue with ships registered using flags of convenience. Again, I don't have a problem with that per se. But if there is dispute involving your ship, you go ask Liberia to sort it out. You get your insurance from Liberia too; you get the picture.
Now, being French I'm also well-aware that French politicians are completely unrealistic and want to tax French companies doing business abroad in France, and American companies doing business in France, in France (notice the pattern?) There is a middle ground.
Oh wait the only international orgs with any teeth are the IMF and the World Bank who support each other in a non-competitive, mutually-supportive, DC-based relationship. Too bad these countries were fucked centuries ago I guess.... it was foolish to hope to begin with.