Eni & Me: The reconstruction of events

Indeed, my unfair dismissal took place in 2001 by “action” and “omission” of ENI’s controlled company, AGIP Brazil, and ENI's attempt of getting rid of, disowning, and rejecting its “Brazilian child” has the sole purpose of shying away from its responsibilities regarding my case.

By saying “action”, I mean the fact that ENI's Brazilian subsidiary dismissed me in “retaliation”, and I say “omission” because both AGIP Brazil and (especially) ENI didn't “protect the whistleblower” as determines the company's Code of Ethics.

Note that, contrary to what ENI claims, there can be no difficulties when it comes to the “reconstruction of events” because it is, without a shadow of a doubt, something absolutely possible, especially because numerous developments have taken place throughout these years since my dismissal in 2001.

Also note that, ENI continues to pretend not to see that every event of our story, from 2001 to this present day, have been duly proven by me through rich, abundant, and robust documentation. As a result, when reconstructing those events, I was able to transform the facts presented by me into indisputable, uncontroversial, irrefutable, and undeniable facts.

Now, if the facts and the dozens of supporting documents presented by me were not enough to “reconstruct the events”, then what would be the reasons for two renowned Italian journalists to publish my story with ENI in an investigative book? And why would another journalist, who's also a critical shareholder of the company, take my case to be discussed during four different shareholders' meetings?

To deconstruct, once and for all, ENI’s narratives, it is absolutely essential to describe the "chronology of the facts", which are based on the series of supporting documents that were presented to the NCP Brazil in this Specific Instance, as well as, repeatedly, to the ENI, throughout all these years, to “reconstruct the events” - a total of “48” events (Doc. 01) - that the company insists on claiming that is a difficult and almost impossible task to accomplish:

With the “chronological” presentation of “fully proven facts” that are sufficiently capable of “reconstructing the events”, ENI needs to answer two questions:

a) What would be the result of a “due diligence” carried out by ENI's Audit Department if the facts and supporting documents presented in this “chronology of facts” for “reconstruction of events” were analyzed?

b) Would a company specialized in corporate investigations — by analyzing the facts and supporting documents presented to ENI in my “proposal for amicable settlement”, and all the facts and supporting documents elaborated by the parties (Submitter and Respondent) in these allegations of non-compliance with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises conducted by NCP Brazil — come to a conclusion about ENI's strategy regarding the “Flinto 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 almost 21 years?

What is the cost of truth? What is the cost of lying?

It is important to underline that, during these more than 20 years, Eni has treaded dangerous terrain. The company is treading on dangerous ground now because of its secrets and lies to my disadvantage.

Note that when the truth about my dismissal compromised Eni, the company went on to lie and lie until it no longer remembered the truth. But it's still a lie! And that's exactly how I was fired from AGIP Brazil, and I've been suffering reprisals from Eni all these years... Lies!

I confess that during these two decades, I was so focused on showing Eni the truth about my dismissal that I didn't realize that the company never wanted to find the truth. But the truth has always been there inside the company: in the whistleblowing files of the internal audit department, in the executives' drawers and on the agendas of the Board of Directors' meetings, even though Eni continues to pretend not to see the truth!

Also note that the truth does not care about people. Truth doesn't care about organizations. The truth lies in wait, waiting as long as it takes, to one day appear, to one day be revealed.

It's undeniable, in all these years, Eni has been distorting, manipulating, and fearing the cost of the truth, whether reputational or financial. But I ask: how much does the lie cost?

Every lie that Eni tells about me - in non-compliance with the premises, principles, and values of Responsible Business Conduct (RBC), which has Ethics as its main foundation, as well as in total disagreement with the corporate and international commitments assumed before the its Stakeholders - increases the company’s debt in relation to the truth. And, as it always happens, sooner or later, one way or another, this debt will be charged and must be paid!

Eni is a joke!

After reading my “opening speech” (read the full text below) - that was based on the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct -, ENI gave up on participating in the "Good Offices", offered by the National Contact Point (NCP Brazil) in the context of the Specific Instance n° 04/2020, in which I made “full proof” of the company’s non-compliance regarding the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises to my disfavor, including the “attacks” to my honor and reputation that go against what is stated on the chapter on “human rights” not only of the OCDE Guidelines but also of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and UN Global Compact.

In fact, the Italian oil giant, when it comes to my case, was not an “ethical company”. Quite the contrary. ENI demonstrated that it doesn’t honor its (corporate and international) commitments assumed with its Stakeholders.

Eni is a joke!

Brazil, January 2022.-

To:     Eni SpA
          Board of Directors    
          Rome - Italy

Subject: Opening Speech (Good Offices – NCP Brazil)

Dear Sirs,

There is a popular saying in my country that says: “Better late than never!”. I waited 20 years to speak with representatives of the Italian oil giant.

In all these years, in addition to the presidency of Agip do Brasil, I made contact with four different Boards of Directors and three different CEOs: Mr. Vittorio Mincato (2002), Mr. Paolo Scaroni (2009), and Mr. Claudio Descalzi (2014 and 2020). Despite my insistence, Eni never contacted me back!

Besides that, Mr. Mauro Meggiolaro, a journalist and Eni’s critical shareholder, starting in 2017, took my case in four Shareholders' Meetings. During the AGM 2018, Mr. Meggiolaro also used the microphone to speak about the “Flinto Case” to everyone present, offering 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. The words of Mr. Meggiolaro are immortalized in the minutes of the meeting, available on Eni's website.

After AGM 2020, I wrote to Eni's new Board of Directors, including the new Chairwoman. Without having received any response once again, I decided to involve NCP Brazil in my case.

In November 2020, on the recommendation of the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs' chief of staff, I spoke with the highest Italian authority in Brazilian territory: the Italian ambassador in Brazil. This diplomat stated that Eni was awaiting a “proposal for amicable settlement”. It couldn't be any different! I imagined that, finally, after two decades, the new Board had inquired into my case. I thought that, even though I knew that Eni could never make a mea- culpa for the misconception made against me, the reparation for all the damages I suffered over these two decades would be accepted by Eni.

But unfortunately, the company gave no response to my proposal, going against the good practices of institutional, diplomatic, commercial, and even legal relations, that is, whoever requests a proposal either accepts the proposal received or makes a counteroffer.

However, I confess that I am very happy to be here and to be able to talk to Eni's representatives after these 20 long years. In fact, I feel honored for having this opportunity!

 First, it is necessary to point out that we are only here because the issues surrounding our conflict are really important. And, because we are in conflict, we inevitably entered into “spirals of conflict”. This means that, for each action, an even more aggressive reaction may occur, and this becomes a vicious cycle in which the conflict only escalates.

And the aggravation of the conflict ends up intensifying our emotions, often generating anger and grudge, resentment and hurt. On the other hand, our conflict is not and never has been personal. I have nothing against Eni's people. Nobody is my enemy. Quite the opposite! The reason for this conflict are the attitudes and misconception to my disadvantage practiced by Agip Brazil and Eni.

I have no doubt that our conflict was a trigger for things to improve. I founded the Brazilian Business Ethics Institute, and I am promoting this very important subject in the business and, especially, in the educational field because the students are the leaders of the companies of tomorrow. Likewise, Eni must have improved its entire whistleblowing process, from the process of receiving complaints to the investigation process, as well as internal controls and the protection of whistleblowers against any retaliation.

When I learned that Eni had accepted the “good offices” offered by NCP Brazil, I was very happy because this attitude is a positive sign, and it indicates the company's desire to solve our problem.

Therefore, I want to thank Eni for the opportunity given to me so that I can express all my opinions regarding our case. I also want to listen carefully to Eni's side because I believe that our dialogue will not only be a dispute over positions, but a space for reflection and conciliation. Plus, we'll have an unmissable chance to put ourselves in each other's shoes.

Note that our 20-year story has been chronologically described in my proposal for amicable settlement. In this proposal, dozens of documents were presented, providing irrefutable proof of what I have repeatedly said over all these years, that is, that I am not (and have never been) the villain of this story. Quite the opposite!

It is indisputable that, to comply with the determinations of Eni's Code of Ethics, I was the whistleblower of this story and the one responsible for uncovering the dark facts that happened in Agip Brazil. Through my complaint, Eni corrected the nonconformities with the Code of Ethics by firing those who needed to be fired, as well as stopping the withdrawals of millions and millions of euros from the vault of the Brazilian subsidiary. But, unfortunately, the company never admitted that I was fired in “retaliation” by Agip Brazil's executives (the same ones I had denounced) when I should have been protected by Eni through the tools present in its Code of Ethics.

What I narrated in my proposal for amicable settlement are indisputable facts because the set of documents fully proves that Agip Brazil and Eni are not only responsible for unjustly denigrating my name, my honor, and my reputation, but they are also responsible for destroying my professional career and taking my retirement away from me. As if that weren't enough, when I was fired by Agip Brazil in a proven retaliation, the company made me lose the chance of having a promising career at Petrobras alongside all my honest colleagues from Agip Brazil, who have been there from 2004 to this very day.

 In the Brazilian state oil company, I would have had the stability of a civil servant, which is an income and benefits much higher than the market average for private companies, as well as a full salary retirement.

As you can see: I was the victim of my own complaint!

Therefore, due to the overwhelming evidence presented by me, we can't say that the acts practiced by Agip Brazil don't concern Eni. In 2001, when I was unfairly fired, Agip Brazil was a company controlled by Eni and subject to the determinations of the Eni's Code of Ethics, including those regarding the protection of the whistleblower.

Nor can we speak of forgetting any fact in our story because, even though they fired me in 2001, several developments took place in all these years, so much so that our conflict has intensified in recent years. Therefore, the “Flinto Case” has been a part of Eni's corporate history in all these 20 years!

Furthermore, during these two decades, “3 versions” of my resignation were presented. Note that in the 3rd version, which was presented at the AGM 2017, Eni tried to prove the facts by stating that, after receiving my first contact in 2002, the company carried out in-depth investigations into my case, recording the conclusion of this investigation in Eni's Balance Sheet from 2002. However, in the 354 pages of this official document, there is not a single line about me.

What truly happened was that, after receiving my contact in 2002, Eni contacted the CEO of Agip Brazil via fax, which was signed by Mr. Luca, an executive at Agip Petroli, in Italy, where he was asked to explain my complaint.

In response to all the questions from Agip Petroli, the Human Resources Director of Agip Brazil and the General Manager of Internal Audit signed a memo with the “circumstances” of my dismissal, without including any documentary evidence. These same “circumstances” were also described by Eni in the 2nd and 3rd versions of my dismissal.

I also believe it is important to underline that there is an infinity of “negative publicity” about

Eni being published in the media and on social networks.

In 2016, after five years of research, two Italian journalists released the first investigative book on the Italian oil giant: “The Parallel State”. And my story with Eni was also published in this work, which became a best-seller in Italy.

More recent cases also point out other negative issues, tainting Eni's name, image, and reputation, not to mention the extremely negative repercussions involving the OPL 245 Case. Despite the victory in this battle in. Court, the current CEO of Eni felt in his own skin the dishonor of having his reputation questioned. I've been confronted and hurt by these same feelings for 20 years!

There are also many organizations who, for several years, have been promoting a negative publicity campaign against Eni. Among them, I can highlight the websites and social networks of Re:Common, Global Witness, and Greenpeace Italy. However, unlike the Eni's actions against me, the company didn't file any lawsuit against them, nor against the authors of the book “The Parallel State”.

For all these reasons, I believe that we shouldn't speak about slander and defamation. In the vast majority of my publications, I simply shared the negative news about Eni, and none of those posts ever had the potential to harm Eni. We can easily tell that by looking at the excellent and enviable financial results of the company over these two decades, which is reflected in the millionaire dividends paid to shareholders and investors throughout the years.

Even so, I apologize if my posts may have offended anyone at Eni.

I want to move to the end of my argument by saying that, in the most recent events in our story, it seems that the new Board of the company didn't investigate my case despite having requested a proposal for amicable settlement in November 2020.

Microsoft's Board of Directors, on the other hand, took a different stance. Even though the facts involving their former CEO and former Chairman took place in 2001, the company's Board made an investigation regarding those facts at the beginning of the year 2021 after receiving a complaint of a love affair between the founder of Microsoft and one of its employees. The global media, of course, reported all that in June 2021.

This is the challenge I have for Eni! I would like that the company to investigate my case — in the light of the commitments made by the Eni (before its internal and external Stakeholders) through its own policies and codes, declarations, norms, and procedures, as well as international pacts, conventions, principles and guidelines accepted and followed by the company, by also including the Italian government, the company's controlling shareholder, which appears in many of these international commitments as an adherent, signatory or ratifying party — to analyze the facts and the dozens of documents that I have presented to Eni. The result of this due diligence, the company presents in this mediation space offered by PCN Brazil. I ask that because, even with the best practices, a company can cause or contribute to cause negative and harmful consequences that it didn't foresee or that it was unable to avoid.

These are my most important observations about our conflict, and I reaffirm that I have a great interest in solving our case in the best possible way.

I want to end my speech by stating that opposing positions don't mean contrary interests. My positions may differ from Eni's positions, but I believe that we have a common interest that goes far beyond that. And this common interest is precisely solving this conflict!

In this space of mediation, there is a great opportunity for conciliation because we are the “protagonists” in the solution of this conflict. Therefore, I have great expectations that a very positive solution can emerge from our dialogue because this attitude is the right thing to do!

Best Regards.

Douglas Linares Flinto

CEO at Brazilian Business Ethics Institute

Submitter of Specific Instance nº 04/2020 of NCP Brazil 

Eni's non-compliance with the OECD Guidelines

ENIFLIX describes the Italian oil giant's non-compliance to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which were reported to the "National Contact Point for a Responsible Business Conduct in Brazil" (NCP Brazil), by Douglas Linares Flinto, a former executive of ENI's Brazilian subsidiary and founder & CEO of the Brazilian Business Ethics Institute. 

And this is the "essence" of this whistleblowing to NCP Brazil: An “unfair dismissal” in a proven “retaliation” imposed by the executives — including the members of the direction of Eni — which Douglas Flinto had denounced; the lack of “whistleblower protection” (in violation of the Code of Ethics), and the inclusion of his name on the “black list” of the Brazilian labor market, as well as Eni's corporate strategy to conduct this case that completed 21 long years: "systemic imposition of retaliations with attacks on his honor and reputation, and victimization instrumentally architected to exempt Eni from its own responsibilities", due to the "actions” and “omissions” by both Eni’s Brazilian subsidiary and Eni itself, which resulted in immeasurable “damage” and countless “losses” to the disadvantage of Douglas Flinto, all in accordance with the facts and supporting documents presented to NCP Brazil.

These attitudes of Eni, totally contrary to the principles and values of “Responsible Business Conduct” (RBC) - which is the heart of the "OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises"  and the foundation of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct - destroyed my professional career forever and took my retirement away from my hands. As if that were not enough, when I was unfairly fired, Eni made me “miss the chance” of living a promising career at Petrobras alongside all my honest colleagues from Eni's Brazilian subsidiary, who have been working there from 2004 to this present day.

Finally, ENIFLIX is based on the orientation of the OECD Watch: "The submitters also feel free to publish your own Final Statement on the case proceedings and outcome submitted to a NCP".