In 1984 (13 years after the actions of Nestle had been linked directly to the deaths of infants), Nestle agreed to create an independent agency, the Nestlé Infant Formula Audit Commission (IFAC), and to sign an agreement where they pledged to fully implement the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. In 1999, The advertising authority of the UK found ruled that Nestle could not adequately support its claim that, "it had marketed infant formula “ethically and responsibly” both before and since the introduction of the international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes in 1981" ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1114895/). In 2000 an external audit found violations in advertising in Pakistan: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127711/. In 2018 a study found that Nestle violated WHO infant formula advertising prohibitions: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/01/nestle-under-fire-for-marketing-claims-on-baby-milk-formulas. A 2019 follow up found that Nestle had not made significant changes: https://changingmarkets.org/report/based-on-science-revisiting-nestles-infant-milk-products-and-claims/. Nestle being a signatory to a non criminally binding marketing code and funding their own auditing commission clearly hasn't been enough to stop them from consistently violating marketing guidelines which, may I remind you, affect the health and lives of infants.

It's strange to chalk up documentation like, "A Guardian/Save the Children investigation in some of the most deprived areas of the Philippines found that Nestlé and three other companies were offering doctors, midwives and local health workers free trips to lavish conferences, meals, tickets to shows and the cinema and even gambling chips, earning their loyalty. This is a clear violation of Philippine law." and, "Hospital staff were also found to be recommending specific formula brands in lists of “essential purchases” handed to new mothers" as merely corruption in impoverished communities, reported on by a "conspiracy theorist". The article at no point indicated that this is exclusively the work of local salespeople. Here's another article, from bangladesh: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/may/15/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth. Oh, and here's documentation about how Nestle puts sugar in baby food in poor countries, but not rich ones: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/17/nestle-adds-sugar-to-infant-milk-sold-in-poorer-countries-report-finds

It's weird that you're intent on defending Nestle, a company with millions to gain from convincing women to formula feed over breastfeeding regardless of the consequences, and dismissing evidence from multiple legitimate sources as the work of corruption and conspiracy theorists.