Ep97 - Eni’s first condition for Good Offices

In the previous episode, I explained why I accepted NCP Brazil’s Good Offices on July 29, 2021, hoping for meaningful mediation and possible remedy for the harm I alleged.

But would Eni also agree to participate?

🔹 ENI’S RESPONSE

On September 3, 2021, Eni accepted Good Offices in Specific Instance No. 04/2020.

After two decades of conflict and failed reconciliation attempts, the company finally agreed to an institutional mediation process.

A new opportunity seemed to be emerging.

🔹 OCTOBER 19, 2021 — ENI’S CONDITION

That evening, NCP Brazil emailed me: Eni had set a condition for continuing its participation.

**All communication during Good Offices had to go through the mediator, with no direct contact between the parties**

The NCP had consulted the OECD - OCDE and its mediation team. Both confirmed that dialogue could proceed on these terms if both parties agreed.

🔹 MY RESPONSE: YES, AGAIN!

On October 21, I formally replied:

“I accept the Respondent’s condition [...] and therefore confirm my interest in continuing with the Good Offices”.

I also requested the mediator’s appointment.

That afternoon, the NCP acknowledged my response.

I placed no obstacles in the way of mediation.

On the contrary, I believed a mediator could facilitate dialogue after 20 years of strained relations.

🔹 WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT?

According to NCP Brazil, the next steps were selecting a mediator, obtaining both parties’ approval, preparing a Work Plan and holding mediation meetings.

My expectation remained unchanged: to discuss the facts, examine the evidence and seek a consensual resolution.

📌 I had accepted Good Offices. So had Eni. And I agreed to its first condition.

The path to mediation finally seemed open.

🔷 NEXT EPISODE: THE WORK PLAN AND ANOTHER CONDITION FROM ENI

After more than 25 years, one question remains unanswered:

🔴 Why doesn't Eni submit the facts, documents and different versions of my dismissal to a truly independent investigation?

I am not asking anyone to believe me.

Know the facts.

Examine the supporting evidence.

And reach your own conclusion.

❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ NCP Brazil’s email (October 19, 2021) and my reply (October 21, 2021): 
🔹 Original in Portuguese
🔹 English translation

Ep96 - I accepted NCP Brazil’s Good Offices

In the previous episode, we saw that on July 20, 2021, NCP Brazil approved the recommendation to offer Good Offices to both parties in the Flinto Case.

Nine days later, I formally accepted.

🔹 TWO DECADES SEEKING CONCILIATION

Since my dismissal from Agip do Brasil in 2001, I had pursued several paths to resolve the dispute with Eni.

▪︎ In 2015, my lawyer and Eni’s external counsel attempted an amicable settlement.

▪︎ In 2018, a critical shareholder requested a mediation meeting. Later, I approached a Mediation Agency in Rome.

▪︎ In 2020, the Italian ambassador to Brazil told me that Eni was awaiting an amicable settlement proposal.

Despite these initiatives, Eni had not agreed to engage in effective mediation toward a consensual resolution.

🔹 WHY DID I BELIEVE THIS TIME WOULD BE DIFFERENT?

Good Offices were not just another private attempt at dialogue. They were an institutional mechanism under the OECD - OCDE Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct (2018) explains that:

• National Contact Points facilitate consensual processes, including mediation and conciliation.

• Companies should cooperate, where appropriate, with legitimate remediation mechanisms, including NCP proceedings.

• Remedy for adverse impacts may take different forms depending on the circumstances.

The Guidance even gives an example of an unfair dismissal complaint in which reinstatement or compensation may be possible remedies.

🔹 MY EXPECTATIONS WERE CLEAR

After 20 years, I hoped Eni would finally engage in institutional dialogue, examine the documents and discuss the true reasons for my dismissal.

I expected NCP Brazil-led mediation to offer a chance for a consensual resolution and remedy for the harm I alleged, supported by the body of evidence I had submitted.

There was no guarantee of agreement, nor had the NCP upheld my allegations.

But there was a real opportunity for dialogue.

For the first time, that opportunity was being offered through an international responsible business conduct mechanism.

I would not waste it.

🔹 JULY 29, 2021 — I SAID YES!

After so many closed doors, I believed this could finally lead to meaningful conciliation.

Would Eni also agree to participate?

🔷 NEXT EPISODE: ENI’S RESPONSE TO NCP BRAZIL’S GOOD OFFICES

After more than 25 years, one question remains unanswered:

🔴 Why doesn't Eni submit the facts, documents and different versions of my dismissal to a truly independent investigation?

I am not asking anyone to believe me.

Know the facts.

Examine the supporting evidence.

And reach your own conclusion.

❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ OECD Due Diligence Guidance (2018)

Ep95 - Good Offices approved

In previous episodes, we examined Eni's March 9, 2021 response to NCP Brazil, signed by Chief Legal Officer Stefano Speroni.

Eni questioned my complaint, my motives and the usefulness of Good Offices in resolving the Flinto Case.

But a new stage was beginning.

📌 JULY 20, 2021 — NCP BRAZIL APPROVED THE OFFER OF GOOD OFFICES

🔹 A NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR DIALOGUE

NCP Brazil's Interministerial Working Group endorsed the Rapporteur's recommendation to offer Good Offices to both parties.

The decision concerned Specific Instance No. 04/2020, opened following my complaint alleging Eni's non-observance of the OECD - OCDE Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

After nearly 20 years of conflict, mediation offered a path toward a consensual resolution.

🔹 WHAT ARE GOOD OFFICES?

OECD National Contact Points facilitate dialogue and seek mutually agreed solutions, potentially including remedies for adverse impacts.

NCPs are not courts, and the OECD Guidelines are not legally binding.

🔹 HAD NCP BRAZIL FOUND ENI RESPONSIBLE?

No.

Offering Good Offices did not mean NCP Brazil had substantiated my allegations or found that Eni violated the Guidelines. It was an opportunity for dialogue, not a ruling on the merits.

🔹 WHY DID THIS MATTER TO ME?

Months earlier, NCP Brazil's Executive Secretary and General Coordinator had explained how Good Offices could help the parties seek a settlement.

I also learned that new documents had prompted further questions to Eni.

I hoped mediation would allow the facts to be discussed, the evidence examined and a fair resolution pursued.

Since 2001, I had sought an independent investigation into the actual reasons for my dismissal from Agip do Brasil - not simply acceptance of the three different versions Eni presented over the years, including the one in its official "Questions and Answers before the 2017 Shareholders' Meeting", still available on its website.

For two decades, I had submitted documents and approached Eni's management and corporate governance.

🔹 WOULD ENI PARTICIPATE?

In March 2021, Eni had questioned whether Good Offices could help resolve the dispute.

Would the company reconsider and agree to mediation?

• And, if so, would it discuss the facts and documents underlying my complaint?

• As for me, my decision was already made.

🔷 NEXT EPISODE: MY ACCEPTANCE OF NCP BRAZIL'S GOOD OFFICES

After more than 25 years, one question remains unanswered:

🔴 Why doesn't Eni submit the facts, the documents and the different versions regarding my dismissal to a truly independent investigation?

I am not asking anyone to believe me.

Know the facts.

Examine the supporting evidence.

And reach your own conclusion.

❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Eni's First Response to NCP Brazil (March 9, 2021)

2️⃣ Complaint to NCP Brazil by Douglas Flinto:
🔹 Original in Portuguese
🔹 English translation

Ep94 - Eni questioned my motives. But...

In previous episodes, we examined Eni's March 9, 2021 response to NCP Brazil, signed by the company's Chief Legal Officer, Stefano Speroni.

Besides questioning Good Offices, the company raised another troubling argument.

📌 DID ENI TURN AN ETHICAL ISSUE INTO A FINANCIAL MATTER?

🔹 THE AMICABLE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL

On page 6, Eni cited a settlement proposal submitted by my lawyers in January 2021.

But an important detail: the proposal followed my November 2020 conversation with the Italian Ambassador to Brazil, who conveyed Eni's intention to resolve the dispute and its request for a proposal.

According to Eni, I sought €5.5 million for moral and financial damages arising from my dismissal.

Eni used this to question my motives.

🔹 WHAT DID ENI ALLEGE?

Eni suggested my real objective was financial compensation I had failed to obtain through lawsuits - initiated against me by the company itself.

It also claimed my complaint was unrelated to the OECD - OCDE Guidelines.

Yet those Guidelines recognize the importance of remedying adverse business impacts.

These were Eni's assertions, not NCP Brazil's findings.

🔹 ARE THESE OBJECTIVES MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?

Since 2001, I have reported alleged irregularities identified while working at Agip do Brasil, later acquired by Petrobras.

I have also sought compensation for damages I attribute to my dismissal and subsequent events.

Why should seeking compensation invalidate a complaint about ethics, integrity and corporate responsibility?

Reporting alleged wrongdoing and seeking compensation are not incompatible.

🔹 WHAT ABOUT THE EVIDENCE?

Eni questioned my motives but attached no supporting documents to its nine-page response allowing its assertions to be verified.

Questioning a whistleblower's motives cannot replace examining the facts and evidence.

That should have been the focus.

🔹 WHAT DID I EXPECT FROM NCP BRAZIL?

Not merely financial compensation.

I sought an institutional process guided by the OECD Guidelines, where evidence could be examined, dialogue established and a fair resolution pursued.

Would the facts finally be independently examined?

🔷 NEXT EPISODE: WHAT DID NCP BRAZIL DECIDE ABOUT GOOD OFFICES?

After more than 25 years, one question remains unanswered:

🔴 Why doesn't Eni submit the facts, the documents and the different versions regarding my dismissal to a truly independent investigation?

I am not asking anyone to believe me.

Know the facts.

Examine the supporting evidence.

And reach your own conclusion.

❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Eni's First Response to NCP Brazil (March 9, 2021)

2️⃣ Complaint to NCP Brazil by Douglas Flinto: 
🔹 Original in Portuguese
🔹 English translation

Ep93 - Why did Eni question Good Offices?

In the previous episode, we examined Eni's first response to NCP Brazil, dated March 9, 2021.

A nine-page letter signed by Chief Legal Officer Stefano Speroni, challenging my complaint and presenting the company's version of events.

But one aspect deserved particular attention.

📌 WHAT DID ENI SAY ABOUT GOOD OFFICES?

🔹 ENI ACKNOWLEDGED THE PURPOSE OF THE PROCESS

On page 7, Eni acknowledged that an NCP's Good Offices can help parties develop joint solutions.

Yet it questioned how this mechanism could work effectively in the Flinto Case.

🔹 ENI CLAIMED TO BE OPEN TO DIALOGUE

The company stated that it had demonstrated openness to dialogue over the years.

But my experience suggested otherwise.

My repeated attempts to engage Eni through its Annual General Meetings, requests for an amicable settlement and mediation initiatives in Rome had failed to produce a resolution.

In the same letter, Eni also characterized my public statements as defamatory.

Eni portrayed my freedom of expression as an obstacle to mediation.

🔹 ENI'S JUSTIFICATION

According to the company, my ongoing public statements represented a significant obstacle to a genuine commitment to peaceful and neutral mediation.

Eni also cited previous judicial and institutional proceedings to support its reservations about Good Offices.

These were Eni's assertions, not findings by NCP Brazil.

🔹 ENI'S CONCLUSION

Eni stated that it could not see how NCP Brazil's Good Offices would positively contribute to resolving the issues raised or promoting the effectiveness of the OECD - OCDE Guidelines.

Eni acknowledged the purpose of Good Offices while questioning their usefulness in the very process intended to facilitate dialogue between us.

🔹 WHAT WAS MY POSITION?

I hoped Good Offices would finally allow us to discuss the facts, examine the evidence and seek a consensual resolution based on the OECD Guidelines and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct.

I was willing to participate in mediation facilitated by NCP Brazil.

But one question remained:

Would Eni maintain its reservations, as it had done in previous attempts at dialogue, or reconsider its position?

🔷 NEXT EPISODE: WHAT DID ENI ALLEGE TO CHALLENGE MY COMPLAINT?

After more than 25 years, one question remains unanswered:

🔴 Why doesn't Eni submit the facts, the documents and the different versions regarding my dismissal to a truly independent investigation?

I am not asking anyone to believe me.

Know the facts.

Examine the supporting evidence.

And reach your own conclusion.

❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Eni's First Response to NCP Brazil (March 9, 2021)