Review and further investigate every issue

In my previous post, I presented the letter I sent on August 1, 2002, to Eni's Board of Directors in Italy.

My objective was simple.

To ask Eni's headquarters to examine the documentation in light of the ethical principles that the company itself claimed to uphold.

The company's institutional response began to emerge just a few weeks later.

On October 3, 2002, an executive at Eni headquarters forwarded my correspondence to the then CEO of Agip do Brasil, piercarlo sanna.

The document contained a clear instruction.

The Brazilian subsidiary was required to review and further investigate the various issues raised in my letter and to provide the requested explanations as a matter of urgency.

In other words, Eni's headquarters did not instruct that the whistleblowing report be dismissed.

Nor did it conclude that the facts were unfounded.

Quite the opposite.

It acknowledged that the issues I had raised deserved careful examination and requested detailed information from the management of its Brazilian subsidiary.

This document represents an important moment in the history of the case.

For the first time, there was a formal instruction from Eni headquarters requiring that the facts I had presented be subjected to an institutional review.

Naturally, this did not mean that my conclusions would necessarily be accepted.

It simply meant that the questions I had submitted to Eni deserved to be answered.

And that is precisely what began to happen.

What happened over the following days, however, deserves careful reflection.

Just four days after this instruction, an internal document was produced that took a very different path from the one that might have been expected.

Instead of addressing the technical grounds of my whistleblowing report, it focused primarily on constructing a "narrative" about the whistleblower himself.

That is the document I will present in my next post.

After twenty-five years, I continue to ask for exactly the same thing:

📌 that all the documentation be examined independently, impartially, and transparently.

❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Letter to ENI's Board of Directors (August 1, 2002):
🔹 Original in Italian
🔹 English translation

2️⃣ ENI Fax to CEO Agip do Brasil (October 3, 2002):
🔹 Original in Italian
🔹 English translation

 

When the whistleblowing report reached Eni’s headquarters

Over the past few weeks, I have presented documents demonstrating the irregularities and unlawful conduct I identified at the Cuiabá Regional Sales Office, the limitations of the Internal Audit Report issued by Eni's Brazilian subsidiary, and several conflicts of interest that, in my view, should also have been examined.

But the story did not end with my dismissal.

One year later, I realized that the matter could no longer be addressed solely within Agip do Brasil.

On August 1, 2002, I sent a letter directly to Eni's Board of Directors in Italy.

The letter was addressed to the Chairman of the company, the CEO, the members of the Board of Directors, as well as the Division General Managers, the executives of Agip Petroli, and the Board of Statutory Auditors.

In that letter, I did not present a new version of the facts.

Instead, I sought to demonstrate that the way my whistleblowing report had been handled was incompatible with the principles that Eni itself declared to uphold in its Code of Ethics.

I explained that I had reported, in good faith, violations of the Eni Group's Code of Ethics and that, only a few weeks later, I had been dismissed.

I also stated that the retaliation I suffered was inconsistent with the ethical commitments publicly assumed by the company.

Throughout the letter, I raised questions that remained unanswered.

🔹 I asked why the company's internal channels had punished the employee who had reported the irregularities.

🔹 I asked what the company intended to conceal by dismissing an employee who had acted in accordance with the principles set forth in its own Code of Ethics.

🔹 And I asked how far the consequences of the corruption scheme and internal fraud I had identified might extend.

I also reminded Eni's directors of one of the fundamental principles set forth in the company's own Code of Ethics:

📌 "No belief that one is acting in ENI's best interests can ever justify conduct that is contrary to these principles".

My objective was - and still is - simple.

To ask Eni's headquarters to examine the documents in light of the principles that the company itself had established in its Code of Ethics.

After twenty-five years, I continue to ask for exactly the same thing:

🔴 that all the documentation be examined independently, impartially, and transparently.


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Letter to ENI's Board of Directors (August 1, 2002):
🔹 Original in Italian
🔹 English translation

2️⃣ Registered Mail Acknowledgment of Receipt (August 5, 2002)