Eni vs OECD Due Diligence Guidance for RBC

Eni states in its "Declaration of Respect for Human Rights" that it follows the “OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises”.

Therefore, to implement these OECD Guidelines, Eni made use of the “OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct”, which in its preface states that the purpose of this material “is to provide practical support to enterprises on the implementation of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises by providing plain language explanations of its due diligence recommendations and associated provisions”, and it also “helps businesses (enterprises) to understand and implement due diligence for RBC as foreseen in the OECD Guidelines”.

In order to conduct business based on the premises, principles, and values of the “RBC”, company executives need to periodically consult this OECD Guide to “recognised that business activities may result in adverse impacts related to corporate governance, workers, human rights, the environment, bribery, and consumers”.

Therefore, in my case, Eni should carry out a "due diligence" according to the facts and the abundant, rich, and robust "supporting documentation" (see Doc. 01 and Doc. 02). The supporting documentation was also unquestionably able to "reconstruct the events" about the actions and omissions of both AGIP Brazil and Eni. And that's because, the duly proven “attacks” that Eni unfairly promoted against my honor and reputation in 2010 (judicial process) and 2017 (ENI’s AGM), are condemned by the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (Article 12).

And by proceeding in this way, the company would comply with the guidelines of the OECD Guide itself: “Due diligence is the process enterprises should carry out to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address these actual and potential adverse impacts in their own operations, their supply chain and other business relationships, as recommended in the OECD Guidelines. Effective due diligence should be supported by efforts to embed RBC into policies and management systems, and aims to enable enterprises to remediate adverse impacts that they cause or to which they contribute”.

Why does Eni need to perform a “due diligence” on my case? The OECD Guide answers this question: “Due diligence should help enterprises anticipate and prevent or mitigate these impacts [...]. Effectively preventing and mitigating adverse impacts may in turn also help an enterprise maximise positive contributions to society, improve stakeholder relationships and protect its reputation [...]. An enterprise can also carry out due diligence to help it meet legal requirements pertaining to specific RBC issues, such as local labour, environmental, corporate governance, criminal or anti-bribery laws”.

So, why does Eni does note "honor" its own commitments??