Thursday, March 07, 2024


I’m the founder and CEO of the 
Brazilian Business Ethics Institute which, for over 20 years, has been promoting Ethics in Brazil in the business and student environment. In fact, we are the "only" institution in my country that promotes the topic of Business Ethics to students, the leaders of tomorrow's companies… And what drove me to found this institution? My story with the Italian oil giant Eni!

It's been more than 22 long years that I've tried to rescue and restore my name, honor and reputation that were destroyed by Eni.

In all these years, five different Boards of Directors, under the management of three different CEOs (2002, 2009, 2014, 2020 and 2023), were contacted by me. But Eni doesn't respond to my persistent messages!

Furthermore, a journalist and "critical shareholder" of the company took my case to be discussed at four Shareholders' Meetings (2017, 2019, 2020 and 2022), but, even though he positioned himself as our "mediator", Eni never agreed to participate in a "mediation meeting".

As if that wasn't more than enough, two other Italian journalists published my story in the first investigative book that told the "problems" in Eni's management for 25 years. The book, entitled "Eni: The Parallel State", became a bestseller in Italy in just a few months.

You can learn more details about this story of "David" against "Goliath" in the attached files that demonstrate Eni's "attacks" against me that are totally contrary to "corporate commitments" (such as the Code of Ethics and Eni’s Declaration on Human Rights) and the "international commitments" that Eni trumpets to the entire world that it "follows" and "accepts": "OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises", "UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights", and the UN Global Compact .

Despite the facts being fully proven, Eni never carried out "Due Diligence". Quite the opposite! The company's strategy, in addition to using the courts to punish me, as I am a defendant in three "SLAPP lawsuits", is: “systemic imposition of retaliations with attacks on my name, honor and reputation, and victimization instrumentally architected to exempt Eni from its own responsibilities".

I would like you to tell my story, not because this story is unique, but because it is not!


Wednesday, February 14, 2024

Eni it doesn't do what it says!


In my case, in more than 22 long years, the Italian oil giant Eni never complied with the words and spirit of the Code of Ethics because it never protected the whistleblower, quite the opposite! The company has been unfairly attacking my name, honor and reputation. 

And what's even worse! Eni, disregarding and neglecting the international commitments that the company claims to the market to “accept” and “follow”, never carried out the necessary "due diligence" on my case, even though I had contacted "five" different Boards of Directors under the management of "three" different CEOs (2002 - Mr. Vittorio Mincato, 2009 - Mr. Paolo Scaroni and 2014, 2020, 2023 - Mr. Claudio Descalzi). 

Furthermore, Mr. Mauro Meggiolaro, a "critical shareholder" of Eni took my case to four shareholder meetings (2017, 2018, 2020 e 2021) and, even though he positioned himself as our "mediator", Eni never agreed to participate in a "mediation meeting". 

The company had similar conduct during the "Good Offices" offered by the NCP Brazil, disregarding and neglecting the guidelines of the "OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct", and refusing to carry out "due diligence" and make a "reparation" consistent with the adverse impacts that were fully proven.

This is Eni's Way!


Saturday, February 10, 2024

OECD WPRBC: Thank you very much for your help!


After requesting help from the Chair of the "OECD Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct" (Mrs. Christine Kaufmann), NCP Brazil removed a paragraph from the Final Declaration of the Special Instance nº 04/2020 - in which I appear as Submitter and, the Italian oil giant Eni, as Respondent - that presented a text (demonstrably) untrue and that attacked my name, my honor, and my reputation. However, there is still a long way to go before this Final Declaration is completely “reliable” with everything that was presented and proven by me to NCP Brazil.


That’s because, said document was written in a disorganized manner, difficult to understand and omitted several important facts - fully proven - which resulted in the decontextualization of a history of almost 22 long years, privileging the Submitter. As if that were not enough, the wording of this document evidences an active, haughty and defensive participation of the NCP Italy in favor of the Respondent, revealing a serious and questionable conflict of interest in this Specific Instance, given that the NCP Italy is part of the “direct public administration” of the Italian government, “controlling shareholder” of Respondent.

Therefore, I will continue to fight, with all legal means at my disposal, for this Final Declaration to be drafted again.


Monday, January 29, 2024

Open Letter to the Chair of the OECD WPRBC


Dear Mrs. Christine Kaufmann,

The first time I contacted you, as chair of the “OECD Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct” (WPRBC), was in May 2023. I informed you that the "Final Statement" of Specific Instance nº 04/2020, conducted by the NCP Brazil, was written, undoubtedly, in a disorganized manner, as well as difficult to understand and omitting several important facts that resulted in the decontextualization of a history of more than 22 long years, favoring the Italian oil giant Eni. Furthermore, this document highlights an active, proud, and defensive participation of the NCP Italy in favor of the “interests” of the Respondent, revealing a serious and questionable “conflict of interest” because the NCP Italy is part of the direct public administration of the Italian government, the “controlling shareholder” of the Respondent.

After just a week, I received your "response", stating that the WPRBC cannot interfere in the the NCP Brazil because the NCPs have “autonomy” in conducting Specific Instances.

I countered your response, claiming that this “autonomy” does not mean that the NCP Brazil can “neglect” its role granted by the OECD, conducting a Specific Instance “at its pleasure”, nor can it allow the NCP Brazil to publish a Final Statement that is not a “mirror” of everything that was manifested and fully proven by more than 100 documents (“depriving” the Submitter of obtaining “minimal” reparation), much less gives the right to the NCP Brazil to “harm” a Submitter.

In August 2023, I made new contact with WPRBC. On this occasion, I demonstrated and proved that the aforementioned Final Statement, by involving the “OECD Secretariat” itself, wrote paragraphs with “untrue content” that attack my honor and reputation, directly violating article 12 of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, the “UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”,  and Principles 01 and 02 of the “UN Global Compact”.

Despite the seriousness of the fact, after 5 months, strangely, I still have not received any response from the WPRBC, much less the necessary “clarification” from the "OECD Secretariat" regarding the conduct of the NCP Brazil.

I hope to receive a response consistent with the seriousness of this issue, otherwise my disappointment with the NCP Brazil will turn into the certainty that the “OECD Guidelines” are only for multinational companies to gain reputational points with their Stakeholders as they boast to the whole world that they “follow” and “accept” the Guidelines. However, when “adverse impacts” are fully proven, these companies do not behave in accordance with the guidance in the “OECD Due Diligence Guide for Responsible Business Conduct”. And, as if that were not more than enough, these companies count on the invaluable help of the NCPs that cause even more damage and harm to the people affected by publishing a Final Statement that is not “reliable” to everything that was presented and proven by the Submitters.

Best Regards.

Douglas Linares Flinto
Founder & CEO Brazilian Business Ethics Institute &
Submitter of Specific Instance nª 04/2020 - NCP Brazil



Read more: 

1) E-mail May 15, 2022: New Eni's Board: "due diligence" of my case 

2) E-mail Sept. 11, 2022: New Eni's Board: Whistleblowing Report vs Human Rights 

3) Eni's Board: Request Douglas Flinto - Addition item to the agenda AGM 2023 Eni SpA

4) Chronology of Facts to describe the events between ENI and DLF from 2001 to 2022


Monday, January 22, 2024

This is Eni's Way

Title: Eni's corporate governance is rubbish... And the Board of Directors is a joke!

Do you think the title of this post contains strong words? So, I ask for your kindness in reading the summary of my story of more than 22 long years with Eni in an attempt to rescue and restore my name, my honor, and my reputation unfairly deprecated. I am quite sure that after reading my post, you will agree with me:

In 2001, after complying with the words and spirit of Eni's Code of Ethics and denouncing a million-dollar scheme of internal fraud and acts of corruption at the Brazilian subsidiary, I was unfairly fired — in proven “retaliation” — by the executives I had exposed, including members of the Board of Agip Brazil.

So, in addition to the presidency of the Brazilian operation (2001) and the Ethics Committee in my country (2002), I made contact – requesting a “due diligence” of my case – with five different Boards of Directors and three different CEOs: Vittorio Mincato (2002), Paolo Scaroni (2009), and Claudio Descalzi (2014, 2020 and 2023). Despite being insistent, Eni never responded to my contacts!

Furthermore, Mr. Mauro Meggiolaro, a journalist and critical shareholder of Eni, took my case to be discussed at four shareholder meetings (2017, 2018, 2020, 2021). In fact, during the 2018 AGM, Mr. Meggiolaro used the microphone, spoke about the “Flinto Case” to everyone present, including members of the company's Board, and offered to be our “mediator”. He even suggested that a meeting be organized to overcome the emotional barrier of our conflict so that we could talk about concrete facts to try to put an end to this story. But the “mediation meeting” was never scheduled!

After the 2020 AGM, I decided to take my case to the NCP Brazil and made a “report” about Eni’s non-compliance involving the “OECD Guidelines”. This report of mine, fully proven by hundreds of documents, concerned the “abuses” of human rights, due to Eni’s “attacks” against my honor and reputation. But the company, once again, refused to engage in dialogue to resolve this ethical conflict and, much less, as advised in the “OECD Guide”, it refused to carry out “due diligence” to verify whether the company caused (or did not cause), contributed (or did not contribute) to the adverse impacts that I have been suffering over these two decades.

Therefore, if the Italian oil giant fulfilled its commitments (such as the Code of Ethics) and, in fact, “accepted” and “followed” international commitments (such as the Global Compact, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the OECD Guidelines), Eni would have another type of conduct concerning my case.

So, is Eni's corporate governance rubbish or not? And is the Board of Directors a joke or not?


Monday, January 08, 2024

2024: Public Challenge to Italian oil giant Eni.

I want to start the year 2024 by launching a “PUBLIC CHALLENGE” to Italian oil giant Eni.

After more than 22 long years, hashtag Eni will finally need to carry out an “in-depth investigation” into my case – in light of the commitments made by the company (to its internal and external Stakeholders) through its own policies and codes, declarations, standards, and procedures as well as international pacts, conventions, principles, and guidelines accepted and followed by Eni, including the Italian government, controlling shareholder of the company, appearing, in many of these international commitments, as adherent, signatory or ratifier – to analyze the facts and the dozens of documents that I presented to hashtag Eni over all these years (see file below).

And the result of this "DUE DILIGENCE", the company will present here, on the largest professional social network in the world, intending to provide “TRANSPARENCY” to our case.

Eni should not be worried about pointing out its mistakes and errors in handling my case. This is because, even with best practices, any company can cause or contribute to negative and harmful consequences that it did not foresee or was unable to avoid.

Eni's Board of Directors and C-Level executives must understand that opposing positions do not mean opposing interests. My position may be different from Eni's position. However, I believe we have a common interest far superior to our positions. And this common interest is precisely the solution to this conflict!

In this public space, LinkedIn, there is a great opportunity for conciliation because we are the "protagonists" in resolving this conflict. Therefore, I have great expectations that, from our dialogue – which never happened – a very positive solution may emerge because this attitude is the right thing to do!

Read more:

1) E-mail May 15, 2022 - New Eni's Board: "due diligence" of my case

2) E-mail Sep 11, 2022 - New Eni's Board: Whistleblowing Report vs Human Rights


Tuesday, November 21, 2023

What bothers the Italian oil giant Eni?

 

It is not my boldness to confront the company for more than 22 long years. Much less my posts on social media about the media reports involving environmental neglect and ethically questionable conduct.

But what bothers Eni the most is the “truth” about the “Flinto Case”.

Read on this LINK the "document" sent to the new Eni Board containing the "facts" and "indisputable proofs" about the false contentregarding my dismissal presented at the Eni Shareholders' Meeting that took place in Rome.


Monday, October 16, 2023

Eni & Fake Profiles on LinkedIn

Could you tell me why Eni would go to the trouble of creating 17 “fake profiles” on LinkedIn to follow a whistleblower who for over 22 long years has been trying to rescue and restore his name, his honor, and his reputation that are being unfairly denigrated by the company itself?

Friday, October 13, 2023

I have nothing to celebrate!

I have nothing to celebrate! Out of 70 years of Eni’s history, I have been part of 22 long years. During this period, I have been demonstrating and "proving" (Doc. 01 and Doc. 02) the mistakes and errors made by the company to my disadvantage.

But, despite this, the Italian oil giant refuses to carry out “due diligence” on my case in light of the commitments made by the company, whether corporate commitments or international commitments.

Therefore, for me, up to this point, Eni's “speech” about “Responsible Business Conduct” (RBC) is nothing more than blah blah blah!

To change this regrettable reality, Eni will need to take actions consistent with its commitments, that is, the company needs to finally analyze my case and make “reparation” consistent with the damages that I am being forced to bear given the systemic "retaliation" with "attacks" on my honor and reputation, and victimization instrumentally architected to exempt the company from its own responsibilities in relation to a whistleblower!

One question remains unanswered: if the Brazilian Labor Court recognized in the court ruling that I was the whistleblower, why doesn't Eni recognize it?


Thursday, September 28, 2023

My whistleblowing on the Eni website

On September 8, 2023, I made a “report” on Eni’s website about the “attacks” on my honor and reputation carried out by the company in 2010 (lawsuit) and in 2017 (Eni AGM). These attacks were fully proven by abundant, rich, and robust documentation (see Doc. 01 and Doc. 02). 

However, to this date, I have not received any type of communication from Eni. For this reason, I have been monitoring whether there is any update on the “status” of my complaint, making daily consultations on Eni’s website using my “KEY-CODE” number. 

It is clear that I have a great expectation that Eni will carry out an “in-depth investigation” into the facts (and proofs) presented by me on its exclusive website to receive whistleblowing from its Stakeholders. 

Please note that, despite my insistent contacts with Eni’s Board of Directors, throughout these more than 22 long years of my “unfair dismissal” — in proven “retaliation”, carried out by those I had denounced, including members of the board of directors of Eni's Brazilian subsidiary — the company never carried out "due diligence" on my case in light of its "corporate commitments" (Code of Ethics and Whistleblowing Process) and "international commitments" that are "accepted" and "followed" by the company (OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, UN Global Compact, and UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights). 

Also note that the Brazilian Labor Court itself “recognized” that I was the “whistleblower”, despite Eni never admitting this fact!? 

Therefore, I hope now that Eni finally has the dignity to do a “due diligence” on my case and report the “official result” of its investigations on its exclusive website for receiving “whistleblowing”, including “adverse impacts” on human rights. 

I will keep you posted!



Wednesday, September 27, 2023

Eni vs UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights


 In its “Declaration on Human Rights”, ENI “publicly” states to all its Stakeholders that it follows the “UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” (UNGP 31).

Therefore, in my case, ENI should pay attention to what these principles guide, especially the principles concerning:

The corporate responsibility to respect human rights

Principle 11: “Business enterprises should respect human rights. This means that they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved”.

Principle 13: “The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises: (a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur; (b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts”.

Principle 15: “In order to meet their responsibility to respect human rights, business enterprises should have in place policies and processes appropriate to their size and circumstances, including: (a) A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to respect human rights; (b) A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights; (c) Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute”.

Principle 17: “In order to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises should carry out human rights due diligence. The process should include assessing actual and potential human rights impacts, integrating and acting upon the findings, tracking responses, and communicating how impacts are addressed”.

Principle 22: “Where business enterprises identify that they have caused or contributed to adverse impacts, they should provide for or cooperate in their remediation through legitimate processes”.

Principle 23: “In all contexts, business enterprises should: (a) Comply with all applicable laws and respect internationally recognized human rights, wherever they operate; (b) Seek ways to honour the principles of internationally recognized human rights when faced with conflicting requirements; (c) Treat the risk of causing or contributing to gross human rights abuses as a legal compliance issue wherever they operate”.


So, why does ENI, in my case, doesn't fulfill this "International Commitment"? 

Now, if ENI has no fear regarding the damage that I have repeatedly suffered over the years, it should at least fear all the unnecessary risks that the company is imposing on the Italian government, the “controlling” shareholder of the Italian oil giant and an "adherent nation" to the UNGP 31.


Tuesday, September 26, 2023

Italian Government vs Principle 04 (The State-business Nexus)



Principle 4: "States should take additional steps to protect against human rights abuses by business enterprises that are owned or controlled by the State, or that receive substantial support and services from State agencies such as export credit agencies and official investment insurance or guarantee agencies, including, where appropriate, by requiring human rights due diligence”.


Commentary: States individually are the primary duty-bearers under international human rights law, and collectively they are the trustees of the international human rights regime.

Where a business enterprise is controlled by the State (as is the case with ENI) or where its acts can be attributed otherwise to the State, an abuse of human rights by the business enterprise may entail a violation of the State’s own international law obligations. Moreover, the closer a business enterprise is to the State, or the more it relies on statutory authority or taxpayer support, the stronger the State’s policy rationale becomes for ensuring that the enterprise respects human rights.

Where States own or control business enterprises, they have greatest means within their powers to ensure that relevant policies, legislation and regulations regarding respect for human rights are implemented.

Senior management typically reports to State agencies, and associated government departments have greater scope for scrutiny and oversight, including ensuring that effective human rights due diligence is implemented.

A range of agencies linked formally or informally to the State may provide support and services to business activities. These include export credit agencies, official investment insurance or guarantee agencies, development agencies and development finance institutions. Where these agencies do not explicitly consider the actual and potential adverse impacts on human rights of beneficiary enterprises, they put themselves at risk – in reputational, financial, political and potentially legal terms – for supporting any such harm, and they may add to the human rights challenges faced by the recipient State (In the case of ENI, besides the Ministry of Economics and the Treasury Office, the “agency linked formally” is the “CDP Bank” - Cassa Depositi e Prestiti SpA).


Italian government is an "adherent nation" to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP 31).


So, why does Italy, in my case, doesn't fulfill the "Principle 04" (The State-Business Nexus)? 


Eni vs Global Reporting Initiative


Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is an international organization that helps companies, governments, and other institutions understand and communicate the impact of business on critical sustainability issues. Climate change, human rights, and corruption problems are some of these issues.

The “GRI Sustainability Report Standards” originated from the GRI Guidelines, which helps organizations identify the impacts of their operations on the environment, economy, and civil society. The objective is to provide reliable, relevant, and standardized information so that the company can evaluate opportunities and risks based on these impacts and make more informed decisions on the subject.

The indicators are arranged in interrelated modules and represent the best practices for reporting the economic, environmental, and social impacts of business, including specific mentions about the “Whistleblowing Process”, which differentiates two of its mechanisms:

a) Complaint: allows individuals to raise concerns about transgressions or violations of the law in the organization's operations or business relationships, regardless of whether they are being harmed or not;

b) Whistleblowing: allows Stakeholders to raise concerns and seek remediation and/or reparation for the organization's potential and actual negative impacts on them.


Why does Eni, in my case, doesn't fulfill the "GRI Standards"? 



Monday, September 25, 2023

Eni x UN Global Compact

Eni's website published:

Eni has today been confirmed as a Global Compact LEAD participant for its ongoing commitment to the United Nations Global Compact and its Ten Principles for responsible business.

Eni was identified as being among the most highly-engaged participants of the world’s largest corporate sustainability initiative.

Sanda Ojiambo, CEO and Executive Director of the UN Global Compact, said, “LEAD companies represent the highest level of engagement with the UN Global Compact. More than ever before, the world needs businesses of all sizes — like the ones announced as LEAD today — that continuously work to improve their sustainability performance and take action to build a better world”.

Claudio Descalzi, CEO of Eni, said “This recognition is an important testimony of our commitment to integrate sustainability into every aspect of our activities, to transform our industry respecting the dignity of every human being and to be open to new frontiers including that of sustainable finance in support of the SDGs. Pursuing this vision, we have strengthened our partnerships with international development cooperation agencies and organizations”.


Now, the duly proven “attacks” that Eni unfairly promoted against my honor and reputation (see Doc. 01 and Doc. 02) in 2010 (judicial process) and 2017 (ENI’s AGM), are condemned by the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (Article 12).

The UN Global Compact has two principles on Human Rights: 

Principle 1:
Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights;

Principle 2:
Make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.


So, why does Eni, in my case, doesn’t fulfill this “international commitment”?


Friday, September 22, 2023

Eni vs G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance

 

Eni say it "follows" and "accepts" the G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance that guides companies in this way:

Stakeholders, including individual workers and their representative bodies, should be able to freely communicate their concerns about illegal or unethical practices to the board and/or to the competent public authorities, and their rights should not be compromised for doing this.

Unethical and illegal practices by corporate officers may not only violate the rights of stakeholders but also be detrimental to the company in terms of reputational effects. It is therefore important for companies to establish a confidential whistleblowing policy with procedures and safe-harbours for complaints by workers, either personally or through their representative bodies, and others outside the company, concerning illegal and unethical behaviour.

The board should be encouraged to protect these individuals and representative bodies and to give them confidential direct access to someone independent on the board, often a member of an audit or an ethics committee.

Some companies have established an ombudsman to deal with complaints. Relevant authorities have also established confidential phone and email facilities to receive complaints. While in certain jurisdictions representative workforce bodies undertake the tasks of conveying concerns to the company, individual workers should not be precluded from, or be less protected, when acting alone.

In the absence of timely remedial action or in the face of reasonable risk of negative action to a complaint regarding contravention of the law, workers are encouraged to report their bona fide complaint to the competent authorities.

Many jurisdictions also provide for the possibility to bring cases of alleged violations of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises to the relevant National Contact Point. The company should refrain from discriminatory or disciplinary actions against such workers or bodies.


So, why does Eni, in my case, doesn't fulfill this "International Commitment"? 



Thursday, September 21, 2023

Eni vs OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises


The duly proven “attacks” that Eni unfairly promoted against my honor and reputation (see Doc. 01 and Doc. 02) in 2010 (judicial process) and 2017 (ENI’s AGM), are condemned by the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (Article 12).

Eni says it “follows” and “accepts” the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct

But what guides this "international commitment" of the Italian oil giant?:

IV. Human Rights 

States have the duty to protect human rights. Enterprises should, within the framework of internationally recognised human rights, the international human rights obligations of the countries in which they operate as well as relevant domestic laws and regulations:

1. Respect human rights, which means they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved.

2. Within the context of their own activities, avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts and address such impacts when they occur.

3. Seek ways to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their business operations, products or services by a business relationship, even if they do not contribute to those impacts.

4. Have a publicly available policy commitment to respect human rights.

5. Carry out human rights due diligence as appropriate to their size, the nature and context of operations and the severity of the risks of adverse human rights impacts.

6. Provide for or co-operate through legitimate processes in the remediation of adverse human rights impacts where they identify that they have caused or contributed to these impacts.


Now, why does Eni, in my case, doesn’t fulfill this “international commitment”?


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??


Wednesday, September 20, 2023

Message to Eni's Shareholders by Claudio Descalzi (Eni's CEO)

 

CEO Guide to Human Rights” an initiative of the WBCSD, Eni's CEO stated: 

Eni's Statement on Respect for Human Rights reflects our salient human rights issues. It is a fundamental landmark in Eni's journey to improve further its business and human rights standards”.


However, Eni's corporate conduct, in my case, is completely contrary to the corporate discourse headed by the company's main executive.


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


Read more at Eni's website about Human Rights.



What does "Eni's Statement on Respect for Human Rights" say?

 

The duly proven “attacks” that ENI unfairly promoted against my honor and reputation (see Doc. 01 and Doc. 02) in 2010 (judicial process) and 2017 (ENI’s AGM), are condemned by the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (Article 12).

ENI has a document on this topic. This is “ENI’s Statement on Respect for Human Rights”, where the company states that: “ENI’s vision on human rights builds on the dignity of every human being and on companies’ responsibility to contribute to the well-being of local individuals and communities”.

In this “public” statement, “ENI reaffirms its commitment to respect the human rights contained in the International Bill of Human Rights, the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the other applicable human rights as set out in international Treaties and Standards”, also recognizing that, “ENI adheres to the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the ten principles of the United Nations Global Compact”. 

ENI further states that, by being “consistent with established principles, ENI is committed to not violating human rights and to remedying any critical actions that may result from activities in which the company is involved”.


SO, WHY DOES ENI, IN MY CASE, DOES NOT “HONOR” ITS OWN COMMITMENTS?


Tuesday, September 19, 2023

What does "Eni's Whistleblowing Policy" say?


 Eni also has a robust policy to regulate the entire “Whistleblowing Process”, from the receipt of the complaint, through the analysis and investigation of the facts until its conclusion, including the appropriate measures to be taken, the feedback to the top executives and the Board of Directors, as well as the filing of the denounced event.

This corporate document, which was released in 2017 and updated in 2019, is part of the “Management System Guideline” and was called “Whistleblowing reports received, including anonymously, by Eni SpA and by its subsidiaries in Italy and abroad”.

It is necessary to highlight some points of this policy that are related to my case:

“Eni will take disciplinary action against employees who intentionally fail to detect or report any violations of the Code of Ethics or make threats or impose reprisals against those who report violations”;

“Eni will also take appropriate disciplinary action against those who fail to protect the whistleblower, who impose retaliation or discrimination against the whistleblower, as well as against anyone who makes reports in bad faith”;

“In assessing the disciplinary sanction to adopt towards anyone who adopts retaliatory or discriminatory measures against the whistleblower will take into account the seriousness of the retaliatory or discriminatory measures, of any damage to health suffered by the whistleblower as a result of these measures, as well as the circumstance that these measures were adopted in a repeated manner or with the participation of two or more people”.


SO, WHY DOES ENI, IN MY CASE, DOES NOT “HONOR” ITS OWN COMMITMENTS?


What does "Eni's Management of Whistleblowing Reports" say?

In compliance with the provision of the Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and the relevant transposition laws, the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the company’s Organisational, Management and Control Model, pursuant to Italian Legislative Decree. n. 231 of 2001, and internal anti-corruption regulations, we have adopted a system for the management of whistleblowing reports that enables us to manage whistleblowing reports received, including anonymously, by Eni SpA and by its subsidiaries in Italy and abroad.

In compliance with applicable regulations, regardless of the content of the report and the entity of Eni concerned by it, it is always guaranteed that reports can be sent directly to Eni SpA or through specific reporting channels, set up by subsidiaries in the cases provided for by applicable regulations.

Whichever channel is used, we guarantee the receipt, analysis and management of whistleblowing reports that are sent by or transmitted from anyone, stakeholders, Eni’s People (Eni personnel and anyone, physical or legal persons, who operate in Italy and abroad for achieving Eni’s objectives, each within the scope of their own functions and responsibilities) or other third parties, also when anonymous. Eni consider a whistleblowing report any communications concerning behaviors that relate to Eni's People in violation of the Code of Ethics, any laws regulations, provisions of authorities, internal regulations, Models 231 or Models CE.

The outcome of the verification activities carried out on the reported facts are presented to the Board of Statutory Auditors, owner of the process, also by virtue of its role as Audit Committee under SOX.

The company guarantees the strict confidentiality on the persons and facts reported and on the identity of the reporting persons to ensure that they are not subject to any form of retaliation.


SO, WHY DOES ENI, IN MY CASE, DOES NOT “HONOR” ITS OWN COMMITMENTS?


Read more at Eni's web site.

Monday, September 18, 2023

What does Eni's Code of Ethics say?


The Code of Ethics is Eni's most important commitment! All other company commitments derive from the premises, principles, and values expressed in the Code of Ethics. 

Note that the section “Disciplinary Actions and Contractual Remedies” determines as follows: 

“Compliance with the rules of the Code of Ethics and corporate regulatory instruments is an essential part of our contractual obligations. For Eni's People, the violation of principles and contents of the Code of Ethics constitutes a breach of the primary obligations as an employee or a disciplinary offense. The violation will have all the legal consequences also in relation to the preservation of the employment relationship, based on the principle of gradation, and may result in compensation for any damages resulting from the violation itself”. 

Now, if the violation of the principles and contents of the Code of Ethics is caused by #Eni itself, will an employee be entitled to compensation or reparation? Evidently yes! The Code of Ethics, as well as being an extension of the employment contract, is a two-way street, that is, rights and duties are reciprocal! 

Friday, September 15, 2023

What do I expect from Eni?


I hope that the Italian oil giant Eni will honor its word and, in this way, that it is fulfilled in my favor everything that the company says it is committed to fulfill. 

This means that I hope that Eni can finally transform the commitments made (whether corporate commitments or international commitments) towards the market and its Stakeholders, into attitudes regarding my case, including a "due diligence" and the necessary "remedy" all the damage that I have been suffering over these more than 22 long years!

#Ethics #BusinessEthics #HumanRights #Integrity #Eni


Wednesday, September 13, 2023

Open Letter to the Chancellor of Italy

To
Farnesina
Mr. Antonio Tajani
Chancellor

Italy

Copy: CIDU, Italian Embassy in Brazil and The Permanent Mission of Italy and Brazil to the UN

              

Subject: CIDU Italy vs Eni SpA

 

Dear Mr. Antonio Tajani,

More than 120 days ago, I sent a message to the CIDU - Interministerial Human Rights Committee (see message below). Despite the seriousness of the allegations of non-compliance by Eni SpA in relation to Human Rights, “strangely” I did not receive any type of contact from CIDU.

It is important to observe CIDU's competencies, described on the institutional website:

. Scopo di  assolvere in via principale agli obblighi assunti dall’Italia in esecuzione dei numerosi accordi e convenzioni adottati sul piano internazionale nella materia della protezione e promozione dei diritti umani;

. Promuovere l’adozione di provvedimenti che si rendano necessari od opportuni per assicurare il pieno adempimento degli obblighi internazionali già assunti o che dovranno essere assunti dall’Italia a seguito della ratifica delle Convenzioni da essa sottoscritte;

. Seguire l’attuazione delle Convenzioni internazionali e la loro concreta osservanza sul territorio nazionale.


Note that Italy is an "adherent nation" to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP 31). Now, the duly proven attacks that Eni unfairly promoted against my honor and reputation (see Doc. 01 and Doc. 02) both in 2010 (judicial process) and 2017 (Eni’s AGM), are condemned by the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (Article 12).

Therefore, Eni, in relation to my case, is not in compliance with its own Declaration of Respect for Human Rights, much less with UNGP 31.

In all these more than 22 long years of "ethical conflict", Eni refused to carry out "due diligence" on my case. So, based on "Principle 4" of UNGP 31, which guides adhering nations on the nexus between the State and state-controlled companies, I request that the Italian government (Eni's controlling shareholder) "demand" that the Board of Directors of the Italian oil giant do due diligence on my case.

I await your contact as soon as possible.

Best Regards.

Douglas Linares Flinto
Chairman & CEO
Brazilian Business Ethics Institute


To

CIDU – Comitato Interministeriale Diritti Umani

Mr. Fabrizio Petri
President
Italy

Copy:       Chancellor Italy (Farnesina)
Chancellor Brazil (Itamaraty)
Ministry of Human Rights – Brazil
Embassy of Italy in Brazil
Permanent Mission of Italy to the UN
Permanent Mission of Brazil to the UN

 

Subject:       CIDU - Whistleblowing against ENI for violation of “human rights”
(Article 12 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

 

 

Dear Mr. Fabrizio Petri,

  

A very important fact that needs to be noted by CIDU in relation to the "3rd version" about my dismissal from AGIP Brazil (former Brazilian subsidiary of Eni). Note that there are only two possibilities for the content of Eni's presentation - in the AGM 2017 - regarding the "3rd versionof my dismissal: either the version is "true" or the version is "false".


I have prepared a "new material" (see attached document) so that you can analyze the strategy that Eni's executives has been using to handle my case: "a systemic imposition of instrumentally engineered retaliation and victimization - with attacks on my honor and reputation - that distorts and manipulates the truth to exempt itself from its own responsibility regarding all the damage I have suffered over these more than 21 long years".

This document fully proves that I am not the "villain" of this story, but the main "victim", despite having complied with Eni's Code of Ethics when I whistleblowing fraud and acts of corruption in AGIP Brazil with deviations million dollars a year. Therefore, I am the whistleblower, as recognized by the Labor Court of Brazil!

For this reason, I ask CIDU to request "clarifications" from Eni's Board of Directors on this situation, which is directly violating the commitments assumed by the company, whether corporate commitments or international commitments such as the "UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights" (Principle 4: The nexus between the State and companies), especially that the Italian government is an adherent nation.

 

And, because of this Principle 4 (UNGP 31), I request that Italian government - as the "controlling shareholder” of ENI - require the company's Board of Directors to finally carry out a "due diligence" on my case in the light of the “chronology of the facts” (see attached file) which was sufficiently capable of “reconstructing the events” about the “actions” and “omissions” of ENI’s Brazilian subsidiary and of ENI itself to my disadvantage.


I place myself, from now on, at your disposal, and I look forward to your contact.


Best Regards.

 

Douglas Linares Flinto

Chairman & CEO

Brazilian Business Ethics Institute