Ep101 - The Mediators: The preliminary meeting

After complying with Eni’s first two demands (the first requiring all communications to take place exclusively through the mediators, with no direct contact between Eni and me; and the second requiring the removal of publications containing negative publicity concerning Eni, as well as refraining from launching new campaigns), the Good Offices process moved into a new stage: the preparation of the Work Plan.

In January 2022, I participated in a preliminary virtual meeting with Isabele Jacob Morgado and RAFAELE RODRIGUES MASCARENHAS MENEZES, the two mediators appointed by Brazil’s National Contact Point (NCP) for the OECD - OCDE Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

The meeting was cordial and highly productive.

During our conversation, it became clear that the Work Plan, to be developed with the participation of both parties, should identify the matters to be discussed throughout the Good Offices process.

This meant that both Eni and I could submit proposals for the agenda.

For me, this opportunity was particularly important.

After all, the Flinto Case involved documented questions concerning how my whistleblowing reports submitted in 2001 had been handled, the functioning of the company’s governance, auditing, and oversight mechanisms, and the inconsistencies among the three different explanations Eni had provided regarding my dismissal from its Brazilian subsidiary.

My objective was to ensure that the relevant facts and documents would be properly considered throughout the process.

However, an important distinction must be made:

🔹 The January 2022 meeting was preliminary and preparatory in nature. It was not a mediation session intended for substantive discussions of the Flinto Case.

At that stage, the Work Plan was still being developed.

And one essential question remained:

📌 Which matters would actually be examined during the Good Offices process?

The agenda initially proposed by the Brazilian NCP addressed Eni’s Responsible Business Conduct practices, including its rules for protecting whistleblowers’ identities.

However, I believed that the documentary evidence concerning the Flinto Case justified a broader approach.

For that reason, I decided to propose amendments to the Work Plan.

🔷 NEXT EPISODE: WHY DID I REQUEST THAT ENI’S WHISTLEBLOWING PROCESS BE INCLUDED IN THE GOOD OFFICES AGENDA?

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.