This is Eni's Way!

There is something deeply troubling when a pattern starts to repeat itself.

In my case, this is not an isolated episode. It is about three formal complaints, at different points in time - 2015, 2020, and 2025 - all centered on the same issue: retaliation following my reporting of irregularities within Eni.

And what happened in all of them?

👉 Dismissal.

👉 No assessment on the merits.

👉 Institutional silence.

Time does not matter.

The strength of evidence does not matter.

The evolution of facts does not matter.

The pattern repeats itself.

In 2025, this scenario becomes even more serious.

My complaint not only reiterated a history of retaliation - it was supported by:

✔️ documentation consolidated over more than two decades;

✔️ a detailed chronological reconstruction of events;

✔️ evidence already acknowledged in other contexts.

And yet, the outcome was the same: no substantive analysis.

But there is more.

At the same time, a criminal complaint filed by Eni against me was accepted - under circumstances that deviate from standard procedural norms, including service through an international rogatory letter whose legality is, at the very least, questionable.

👉 In other words:

✔️ retaliation complaints are dismissed without analysis;

✔️ while actions against the whistleblower move forward.

This is not just imbalance.

👉 This raises a structural issue.

When an authority such as ANAC (Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione) repeatedly dismisses complaints on the same grounds - always without examining the merits - we are no longer dealing with isolated technical decisions.

We are facing an institutional pattern of non-engagement.

This is precisely the type of dynamic that led journalists like Andrea Greco (La Repubblica) and Giuseppe Oddo to describe, back in 2015, in the book “Eni, The Parallel State”, the existence of a system of power operating beyond formal control mechanisms.

My story with the company is documented in that work.

And in light of today’s facts, the question becomes unavoidable:

👉 to what extent does this “parallel state” continue to operate - not only within corporations, but also in how institutions decide what to investigate… and what not to investigate?

Because when complaints are systematically ignored, and when the merits are never examined, the issue ceases to be individual.

👉 It becomes institutional.

Eni: The compliance façade

Nearly 25 years after the events that profoundly impacted my professional trajectory, Eni formally acknowledged my whistleblowing report, accepting it in August 2025 within its internal system.

What one would expect at that point is a serious, independent investigation aligned with the very principles the company claims to uphold - including those embedded in its internal policies and international standards such as ISO 37301.

However, what has unfolded in practice is something quite different.

There has been no concrete evidence of a substantive investigation into the facts presented. Instead, the response has been limited to formal, template-based communications, with no real transparency regarding the investigative process, the criteria applied, or the conclusions effectively reached.

The situation becomes even more concerning when considering that:

✔️ no independent external review of the case was conducted, as formally confirmed by RINA;

✔️ the entire investigative process remained fully under the company’s control;

✔️ and yet, there is no access to the substantive content of the alleged findings.

More recently, by exercising my right of access under the GDPR, I requested access to the personal data processed in the context of this investigation - including those contained in the whistleblowing assessment report.

The response from the Data Protection Officer was clear in denying access to internal documentation.

This raises an unavoidable question:

📌 how can an effective investigation be asserted without any transparency regarding the elements that would substantiate it?

📌 If an investigation did take place, where are the verifiable elements that demonstrate it?

📌 If not, what exactly was assessed?

Facts, documents, and timelines speak for themselves.

This is not just an individual case.

It is a real test of what commonly used corporate terms truly mean: ethics, transparency, and accountability.

Because in the end, compliance is not what is written in policies or institutional reports.

Compliance is what can be proven when it is truly put to the test.

🛑 Note:

Learn more by accessing the Flinto Case:

✅ 1) Memorial (1999–2025);

✅ 2) Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events supported by documentary evidence;