I still hope to be surprised and delighted by ENI's conduct

 

Note that ENI’s arguments, sent to NCP Brazil in the “confidential documents” dated March 2021, September 2021, and April 2022, in addition to distorting and manipulating the truth of the facts, the arguments also had something in common: the company continues to unjustly attack my honor and reputation.

During all these years, especially the latest events in this story, which took place in 2020, 2021, and 2022, including ENI's participation in this Specific Instance, the corporate strategy to conduct the "Flinto case" continues to be practiced: a systemic imposition of instrumentally engineered retaliation and victimization with the sole objective of the company exempting itself from its own responsibility.

If that were not ENI's strategy, the company wouldn't mind carrying out a "due diligence" on my case, as well as analyzing the facts and all the documents presented by me in the light of its own commitments and the international commitments accepted and followed by the company.

Now, what is ENI's fear of following the guidelines and recommendations of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct?

Note that, in ENI's correspondence, dated March 2021, sent to PCN Brazil, the company states in a loud and clear voice: What could or should Eni have done that has not already been done?

The answer is more than evident: the company needs to carry out a “due diligence” on my case in the light of the “chronology of the facts” (Doc. 01) and the “supporting documentation” that were sufficiently capable of “reconstructing the events” that took place in these two decades!

If ENI were so confident regarding its arguments presented in this Specific Instance to my disadvantage, the company would be the first to want to present to the NCP Brazil the “result” of “closer inspection” into my case to make “full proof” of what ENI said in the “2nd and 3rd versions” about my dismissal when replicating and sharing information from AGIP Brazil without any documentary proofs.

Also note that the truth presented and proven in the “chronology of facts” was not only sufficiently capable of “reconstructing the events” involving all these years of ethical struggle with ENI, but it also compromises the company. That is why the Italian oil giant continues distorting and manipulating the truth of the facts, in addition to unjustifiably refusing to carry out a “due diligence” on my case.

Now, what is ENI's fear in accepting the truth of the facts presented by me? It's also embarrassing for the company not wanting to see that the facts presented by me were absolutely proven, thus, turning my arguments into indisputable, uncontroversial, irrefutable, and undeniable facts.

ENI may not even come out publicly, let alone apologize for the mistakes to my disfavor, but the truth about the “Flinto case” lies within the company itself: in the internal audit department's whistleblower files, in all executives' drawers. who led this case and on the agendas of the Board of Directors' meetings!

Therefore, much more than pleading an "admission of legal liabity" as stated by ENI, the "reparation" for all the damage I suffered over all these years is a matter of dignity, honor, and justice. That's because, even with the best practices, a company can cause or contribute to causing negative and harmful consequences that it did not foresee or was unable to avoid. This situation is obviously not a demerit for any company. Quite the opposite! It is cases like mine that make a company improve its corporate governance processes even more.

I don't know if ENI has already realized that the company is a spectator of itself. The Italian oil giant is observant of its own conduct. It would be much more admirable if ENI were delighted with itself because of always doing what is right, as enshrined in its Code of Ethics. By doing that, the company would manage to not only be delighted with itself, but ENI would also delight its Stakeholders.

I confess that I still hope to be surprised and delighted by ENI's conduct regarding the “Flinto case”.