Ep91 - Eni faces new questions

In the previous episode, we learned that, on October 16, 2020, NCP Brazil accepted my complaint against Eni, allowing Specific Instance No. 04/2020 to proceed.

But the proceedings did not stand still.

📌 APRIL 2021: A MEETING WITH NCP BRAZIL'S LEADERSHIP

I attended a virtual meeting with Executive Secretary Márcio Luiz de Freitas Naves de Lima and General Coordinator Hevellyn Albres.

Since my complaint was accepted, I had continued informing NCP Brazil about developments in the Flinto Case.

🔹 NEW DOCUMENTS AND DEVELOPMENTS

Among the information I submitted were:

• Documents received from Petrobras in November 2020, following a determination by Brazil's Office of the Comptroller General (CGU) under the Access to Information Law. Petrobras acquired Eni's Brazilian assets in 2004.

• My request for an amicable settlement proposal through the Italian Ambassador to Brazil in November 2020.

• Eni's failure to respond to my attempts at dialogue - an issue subsequently raised at its May 2021 AGM by critical shareholder Mauro Meggiolaro, representing Fondazione Finanza Etica.

My complaint was not based solely on events from 2001. New evidence and developments continued to emerge.

🔹 ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO ENI

During the meeting, NCP Brazil's representatives informed me that these developments had prompted the rapporteur to formulate additional questions for Eni.

The company was expected to respond by the end of May 2021.

🔹 THE NEXT STEP: GOOD OFFICES

The representatives also explained that NCP Brazil could offer its principal mechanism for facilitating dialogue and seeking a consensual resolution:

GOOD OFFICES

Through this process, NCP Brazil would help the parties seek an agreement and address potential adverse impacts.

🔹 WHAT DID THIS MEETING MEAN TO ME?

After almost 20 years of seeking answers from Eni, I saw an institutional opportunity for dialogue.

I wanted the facts examined and the dispute resolved fairly and responsibly.

But one fundamental question remained: What was Eni's position on my complaint?

🔷 NEXT EPISODE: ENI'S FIRST RESPONSE TO NCP BRAZIL.

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 Official NCP Brazil Record — Specific Instance No. 04/2020:
🔹Original in Portuguese
🔹English translation

Ep90 - Did NCP Brazil accept the Flinto Case?

In the previous episodes, we learned how the OECD - OCDE National Contact Points (NCPs) operate, what a Specific Instance is, how the Initial Assessment works, and what Good Offices are.

In the last episode, we presented the complaint I filed against Eni with NCP Brazil in July 2020, based on the OECD - OCDE Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Now, it is time to examine the first institutional decision concerning the Flinto Case.

📌 DID NCP BRAZIL ACCEPT MY COMPLAINT AGAINST ENI?

YES!

🔹 AUGUST 12, 2020 — ADMISSIBILITY REVIEW

NCP Brazil completed its admissibility review of the complaint and subsequently appointed a rapporteur within its Interministerial Working Group (GTI-PCN).

🔹 OCTOBER 16, 2020 — THE DECISION

The GTI-PCN endorsed the rapporteur's recommendation and "decided to accept the Flinto Case" registered as Specific Instance No. 04/2020.

The decision is documented on the Brazilian government's official website.

🔹 WHAT DID THIS ACCEPTANCE MEAN?

The acceptance of a Specific Instance does not mean that the NCP concluded that the company concerned had violated the OECD Guidelines.

It means that the complaint was accepted for further consideration under the NCP procedure.

NCP Brazil did not find Eni responsible for any wrongdoing. But it did not reject my complaint either.

🔹 WAS NCP ITALY ALSO INVOLVED?

YES!

According to the official record, in November and December 2020, NCP Brazil held consultations with NCP Italy to determine how the proceedings should move forward.

The reason was that Eni's headquarters were located in Italy and the Italian NCP had previously handled a complaint I had submitted concerning the company.

Therefore, the Flinto Case was moving forward institutionally, with the involvement of the National Contact Points of two countries: Brazil and Italy.

However, important questions remained to be answered.

What new facts emerged during the proceedings? And what questions would Eni need to answer?

🔷 NEXT EPISODE: DID ENI AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE GOOD OFFICES PROCESS?

After almost 20 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 Complaint to NCP Brazil:
🔹 Original in Portuguese
🔹 English translation

2️⃣ Official NCP Brazil Record — Specific Instance No. 04/2020:
🔹 Original in Portuguese
🔹 English translation

Ep89 - The Flinto Case reaches NCP Brazil

In the previous three episodes, we learned what a National Contact Point (NCP) is, what a Specific Instance is, how the Initial Assessment works and what Good Offices are.

Now it is time to return to the documents.

📌 On July 15, 2020, I signed a complaint against Eni before NCP Brazil, based on the OECD - OCDE Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

The document would be submitted as a Specific Instance.

At that point, my story with Eni was approaching its 19th anniversary.

In May 2020, following the election of Eni’s new Board of Directors, I wrote to the new Chairwoman, copying the other Board members, including CEO Claudio Descalzi, and requested that the Flinto Case finally be examined by Eni.

When I submitted my complaint, I had still received no response from the company. But that Specific Instance was not simply a retelling of my story.

I identified which provisions of the OECD Guidelines I believed should be examined in light of the facts and documents presented.

Among them:

🔹 GENERAL POLICIES One provision recommended that enterprises refrain from discriminatory or disciplinary action against workers who make bona fide reports about practices that contravene the law, the Guidelines or the enterprise’s policies

🔹 DISCLOSURE I also invoked provisions concerning policies and codes of conduct, as well as internal audit, risk management and compliance systems

🔹 HUMAN RIGHTS The complaint also cited provisions stating that enterprises should respect human rights, avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts, and address such impacts when they occur

I was not asking NCP Brazil simply to believe my version.

I was submitting facts, documents and the different versions regarding my dismissal for examination under an institutional mechanism established by the OECD Guidelines.

And the complaint had a clear objective.

After almost 19 years, I hoped to restore my name, my honour and my reputation.

At the end of the document, I expressly requested that NCP Brazil offer its:

📌 GOOD OFFICES

the mechanism examined in the previous episode.

But submitting a Specific Instance did not mean that NCP Brazil would accept it.

First, there would be an Initial Assessment.

What did NCP Brazil do after receiving my complaint against Eni?

Did it request additional clarifications?

And, most importantly:

🔴 Was the Flinto Case Specific Instance accepted?

That is what we will examine in the next episode.

🔷 NEXT EPISODE: DID NCP BRAZIL ACCEPT THE FLINTO CASE?

After almost 20 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 Complaint to NCP Brazil: 
🔹 Original
🔹 English

Ep88 - What are Good Offices?

In the previous two episodes, we saw what a National Contact Point (NCP) is and how a complaint - formally known as a Specific Instance - undergoes an Initial Assessment to decide whether alleged non-compliance with the OECD - OCDE Guidelines should proceed.

But what happens when the complaint is accepted?

A new stage may begin:

🔹 GOOD OFFICES

According to OECD Watch, when a complaint is accepted, the NCP offers assistance to the parties - known as Good Offices - usually through mediation or conciliation, to help them resolve the issues raised.

📌 The objective is to create a space for dialogue.

Mediation seeks to facilitate an agreement between the parties on the issues raised in the complaint.

The NCP may conduct the mediation itself or use an external professional mediator.
Meetings may be held separately with each party or jointly.

📌 But there is one fundamental characteristic: participation is voluntary.

According to OECD Watch, because the OECD Guidelines are not binding on companies, a company may decide not to participate in mediation - or even in the complaint process as a whole.

Therefore, the offer of Good Offices does not mean that the NCP has concluded that the company violated the Guidelines.

It means the complaint should proceed and the NCP is offering a mechanism for the parties to try to resolve the issues through dialogue.

📌 And mediation does not guarantee an agreement.

According to OECD Watch, it may result in:

🔹 an agreement on all issues;

🔹 an agreement on some of them;

🔹 or no agreement at all.

If no agreement is reached, the process does not necessarily end without an outcome: the NCP publishes a Final Statement, which may include recommendations to the company and, depending on the NCP and the case, a determination regarding possible non-compliance with the Guidelines.

And this is where these three conceptual episodes connect directly with my story.
So far, we have seen:

🔹 what an NCP is;

🔹 what a Specific Instance is;

🔹 how the Initial Assessment works;

🔹 and what Good Offices are.

Now we can return to the documents.

In 2020, after once again approaching Eni’s Board of Directors and receiving no response, I decided to turn to this mechanism.

THE FLINTO CASE WOULD REACH NCP BRAZIL.

What did I submit?

Which Guidelines did I allege may have been breached?

And, most importantly:

Did NCP Brazil accept my Specific Instance?

That is what we will examine through the documents in the next episode.

🔷 NEXT EPISODE: THE FLINTO CASE REACHES NCP BRAZIL

THE PURPOSE OF THE ENI’S WAY CAMPAIGN REMAINS THE SAME

After almost 20 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 www.oecdwatch.org

Ep87 - What is a Specific Instance?

In the previous episode, we saw that National Contact Points (NCPs) have two fundamental functions: to promote the OECD - OCDE Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and to handle complaints involving alleged non-compliance with those Guidelines.

But how does a complaint reach an NCP?

There is a specific term for it:

🔹 SPECIFIC INSTANCE

This is the formal term used for complaints submitted through the National Contact Point mechanism.

But there is an important distinction:

📌 Filing a Specific Instance does not mean that it will automatically be accepted to proceed.

After a complaint is submitted, the NCP conducts an Initial Assessment to decide whether the case should move forward.

According to OECD Watch, at this stage the NCP assesses the complaint against six admissibility criteria:

1️⃣ Does the complainant have an interest in the issues raised?

2️⃣ Are the issues covered by the Guidelines and plausible based on sufficient and credible evidence?

3️⃣ Is the company and the circumstances involved within the scope of the Guidelines?

4️⃣ Is there a link between the company’s activities and the issues raised in the complaint?

5️⃣ Would other laws or parallel proceedings limit the NCP’s ability to contribute to resolving the issues or to the company’s implementation of the Guidelines?

6️⃣ Would examining the issues contribute to the purposes and effectiveness of the Guidelines?

And there is a fundamental point.

According to OECD Watch, during the Initial Assessment, the NCP should not conduct an in-depth analysis of the evidence presented or an extensive assessment of the company’s relationship to the alleged harm.

The purpose of this stage is to decide whether the complaint should proceed.

Therefore:

🔹 Accepting a Specific Instance for further examination does not mean concluding that the company violated the OECD Guidelines.

🔹 It means that there are sufficient grounds for the issues raised in the complaint to proceed for further consideration.

🔹 And this distinction will be fundamental when we reach the documents of the Flinto Case.
But what happens when a Specific Instance is accepted?

The procedure may move to a new stage in which the NCP offers the parties what the system calls:

📌 “GOOD OFFICES”

What are Good Offices?

Is the company required to participate?

What role does mediation play?

And does the offer of Good Offices mean that the NCP has already decided who is right?

That is what we will examine in the next episode.

🔷 NEXT EPISODE: WHAT ARE GOOD OFFICES?

THE PURPOSE OF THE ENI’S WAY CAMPAIGN REMAINS THE SAME

After almost 20 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 www.oecdwatch.org