Questions for the largest Shareholders of Eni

 In commemoration of the 22nd anniversary of my dismissal from the Brazilian subsidiary of the Italian oil giant Eni in proven “retaliation” – imposed by those I had denounced, including a member of the Board – I would like to ask two questions to be answered by the largest shareholders of the company:

1) Don’t the main shareholders of a company have the obligation to demand from the Board of Directors a conduct in conformity with the Code of Ethics and also with the international commitments accepted and followed by the company such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the 10 principles of the Global Compact?

2) So what are the reasons for the CDP Cassa Depositi e Prestiti and the Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze not to take any kind of action regarding my case with the Italian oil giant Eni despite the facts being fully proven?

Eni suffered the third defeat!

Now, it was the turn of the Italian Court of Cassation to confirm the sentence of 1st and 2nd Instance, that is, the lawsuit (for slander and defamation) against me was considered “without foundation”, in addition to the company not having proven the criteria for the claim for compensation of 15 million euros! 

In fact, the conduct of the Italian oil giant to my disadvantage is nothing more than a “SLAAP suit”.

Read the COURT RULING.

Read more about SLAAP SUIT.

Eni vs “walk the talk”

What could lead a senior communications executive to “block” a connection on LinkedIn?

I always imagined that external communication professionals followed the “best practices” in the “Corporate Communication Manual” in the relationship with the company's Stakeholders.

On the other hand, I can understand Mrs. Erika Mandraffino’s reasons... Well, she doesn't want to face the unjustifiable conduct of the Italian oil giant that, in my case, is totally contrary to corporate commitments (including the principles enshrined in Eni's Code of Ethics) and, above all, the international commitments that the company says it “accepts” and “follows”: OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the 10 Principles of the Global Compact.

In fact, in my case, Eni left aside what all Stakeholders expect from a company: “walk the talk”.

I still hope to be surprised and delighted by ENI's conduct

 

Note that ENI’s arguments, sent to NCP Brazil in the “confidential documents” dated March 2021, September 2021, and April 2022, in addition to distorting and manipulating the truth of the facts, the arguments also had something in common: the company continues to unjustly attack my honor and reputation.

During all these years, especially the latest events in this story, which took place in 2020, 2021, and 2022, including ENI's participation in this Specific Instance, the corporate strategy to conduct the "Flinto case" continues to be practiced: a systemic imposition of instrumentally engineered retaliation and victimization with the sole objective of the company exempting itself from its own responsibility.

If that were not ENI's strategy, the company wouldn't mind carrying out a "due diligence" on my case, as well as analyzing the facts and all the documents presented by me in the light of its own commitments and the international commitments accepted and followed by the company.

Now, what is ENI's fear of following the guidelines and recommendations of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct?

Note that, in ENI's correspondence, dated March 2021, sent to PCN Brazil, the company states in a loud and clear voice: What could or should Eni have done that has not already been done?

The answer is more than evident: the company needs to carry out a “due diligence” on my case in the light of the “chronology of the facts” (Doc. 01) and the “supporting documentation” that were sufficiently capable of “reconstructing the events” that took place in these two decades!

If ENI were so confident regarding its arguments presented in this Specific Instance to my disadvantage, the company would be the first to want to present to the NCP Brazil the “result” of “closer inspection” into my case to make “full proof” of what ENI said in the “2nd and 3rd versions” about my dismissal when replicating and sharing information from AGIP Brazil without any documentary proofs.

Also note that the truth presented and proven in the “chronology of facts” was not only sufficiently capable of “reconstructing the events” involving all these years of ethical struggle with ENI, but it also compromises the company. That is why the Italian oil giant continues distorting and manipulating the truth of the facts, in addition to unjustifiably refusing to carry out a “due diligence” on my case.

Now, what is ENI's fear in accepting the truth of the facts presented by me? It's also embarrassing for the company not wanting to see that the facts presented by me were absolutely proven, thus, turning my arguments into indisputable, uncontroversial, irrefutable, and undeniable facts.

ENI may not even come out publicly, let alone apologize for the mistakes to my disfavor, but the truth about the “Flinto case” lies within the company itself: in the internal audit department's whistleblower files, in all executives' drawers. who led this case and on the agendas of the Board of Directors' meetings!

Therefore, much more than pleading an "admission of legal liabity" as stated by ENI, the "reparation" for all the damage I suffered over all these years is a matter of dignity, honor, and justice. That's because, even with the best practices, a company can cause or contribute to causing negative and harmful consequences that it did not foresee or was unable to avoid. This situation is obviously not a demerit for any company. Quite the opposite! It is cases like mine that make a company improve its corporate governance processes even more.

I don't know if ENI has already realized that the company is a spectator of itself. The Italian oil giant is observant of its own conduct. It would be much more admirable if ENI were delighted with itself because of always doing what is right, as enshrined in its Code of Ethics. By doing that, the company would manage to not only be delighted with itself, but ENI would also delight its Stakeholders.

I confess that I still hope to be surprised and delighted by ENI's conduct regarding the “Flinto case”. 

My children will continue to fight for me!

 

Eni already knows that I am tireless and unstoppable! Even so, I must let the record show that I will never give up trying to rescue and restore my name, my honor, and my reputation that, over these almost 22 years, has been unfairly denigrated by Italian oil giant, despite the company being fully aware that its actions and omissions continue to cause me numerous damages.

Therefore, as long as I am healthy, I will continue to fight with all the legal instruments at my disposal. If needed, my children, my legitimate heirs - who, since childhood, have followed every chapter of my story with #Eni and, therefore, have also been affected - will continue to fight for me!

Clarifications by Eni to the Stakeholders

The ENI's Stakeholders, including the company's shareholders, need to seek clarification from the Italian oil giant, as the “chronology of the facts” (Doc. 01) - about my story with Eni presented on Eni's Way and ENIFLIX in all their details websites - through abundant, rich, and robust "supporting documentation" that, undeniably, were sufficiently capable of “reconstructing the events” (a total of 48 events) involving the “actions” and “omissions” of ENI’s Brazilian subsidiary and of ENI itself due to my “unfair” dismissal, which indisputably was in “retaliation”; and the lack of "whistleblower protection" (as determined by ENI’s Code of Ethics) as well as ENI’s strategy to conduct the "Flinto case", which was also unquestionably used in these two decades: "systemic imposition of retaliation with attacks on my honor and reputation, and instrumentally engineered victimization”.

Through the affirmation in the previous paragraph, ENI needs to present to the company's shareholders a justification for the following question: "If the facts and the dozens of supporting documents presented by me were not sufficiently capable of "reconstructing the events", what then would be the reasons for two renowned Italian journalists to publish my story with ENI in an 'investigative book' (Eni: The Parallel State) which, in a few months, became a bestseller in Italy, and another journalist, a 'critical shareholder' of ENI, to take my case to be discussed in the course of four different shareholders' meetings?”.

Therefore, with the chronological presentation of facts that are fully proven and that are indisputably capable of convincing anyone, ENI needs to answer to the company's shareholders a very pertinent question: "What would be the result of a "due diligence" conducted by the Internal Audit Department of ENI, if an ‘in-depth investigation’ was carried out on everything that was presented (and proven) in this my whistleblowing?”.

Eni has numerous and serious problems

It is very important for the global market to note that, ENI's conduct is not an isolated case. Quite the opposite! The facts below - which are very similar to my case presented in this web site - demonstrate that ENI has "numerous" and "serious" problems involving the "Whistleblowing Process":

a) YEAR 2013

In 2013, a “blog” maintained by a university professor and environmental activist hosted in an Italian newspaper, told the story of Mr. Gianni Franzoni, an oil tanker captain for the company SAIPEM, a company controlled by ENI.

The report, entitled “In the open sea, the eyes do not see and the heart does not hurt” (Doc. 01), says that, in 2007, Mr. Franzoni became aware of numerous technical and certification irregularities. Their findings indicated that “SAIPEM was carrying out naval operations, oil drilling, and industrial work in deep waters without adequate personnel, in violation of issued certifications or even without the necessary certificates as required by Italian law and international regulations. All this, so as not to have to restructure and update its infrastructure, putting workers and the environment at risk”.

The blogger also says that: “Instead of the company thanking the captain for his work, for his ethical courage, and for his love of the sea, he was the first to be fired, in 2012. Mr. Franzoni did everything he had to do. First, he presented his complaint within SAIPEM, in accordance with the Code of Ethics. Then he wrote to the 'Ethics Commission' — those who should verify the allegations through a 'due diligence' (internal audit). And, after being fired, the commander wrote an 'open letter' to the CEO of ENI (Mr. Paolo Scaroni), in 2013 (Doc. 02). As ENI did nothing, he filed a 'criminal complaint' to the Italian Public Ministry (Doc. 03)”.

In 2014, Mr. Franzoni made contact with me. But what could I do to help him, other than publish his story with ENI on my social media?

b) YEAR 2016:

An Italian journalist, when breaking the news of the dismissal of this other employee of ENI, was quite blunt in naming his article, in 2016: “Eni, games and porn movies in the control room. Dismissed for having denounced the truth” (Doc. 04).

c) ANO 2017:

Contrary to what ENI is reporting to the global market, the “audit” carried out by RINA Services in 2017 had nothing to do with my specific case.

The truth is that, in 2017, as CEO of the Brazilian Business Ethics Institute, I received two “anonymous whistleblowing” involving fraud and acts of corruption in the Americas (Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, and the United States) carried out by managers and executives of ENI and with the involvement of top people, located at ENI’s headquarters in Rome.

The aforementioned anonymous whistleblowing reached my hands at the same time. But one of them was posted in the US Post Office (Doc. 05) and the other one in the Italian Post Office (Doc. 06).

Now, what are the reasons for ENI's Stakeholders to send “complaints” to me? 

Now, why were these complaints not sent to the “Whistleblowing Channel” of ENI itself? 

Now, why were these serious complaints involving executives from ENI’s top management not sent directly to the “Board of Directors”?

Could the answer be related to the suspicion of ENI's Stakeholders in the "whistleblowing process" that does not have sufficient credibility and is not a credible procedure? Or would the answer lie in the fact that ENI’s employees are being fired after filing a whistleblowing?

As soon as I received these anonymous reports, I forwarded them both to ENI’s internal channels and to RINA Services, a multinational company that certifies ISO standards, with 160 years of experience in a wide range of sectors, operating in 70 countries, with 200 offices and more than 4,000 professionals, but headquartered in Italy (!?).

In 2022, due to documents attached to the second lawsuit filed by ENI against me, I learned that, in May and June 2017, RINA Services carried out a “complex audit” of ENI (is that right?) about the “anti-bribery management system” of the ISO 37001 standard. After the work, an “internal audit report” was prepared (Doc. 07).

Note that a “statement” (Doc. 08) was prepared by RINA Services - four years after such internal audit - on June 04, 2021, being stated that: “[...] It requested detailed information regarding the management of the aforementioned situations and planned an additional audit to assess the correct management of the report according to the requirements, the reference standards and in order to be able to give a correct answer to the complainant, Mr. Douglas Linares Flinto”.

However, I never received any kind of response, neither from ENI nor RINA Services. Why not?

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".

KEY POINT: Eni SpA x Douglas Flinto

A very important fact that needs to be noted by Eni's Board in relation to the "3rd version" about my dismissal presented by the company during the Shareholders' Meeting (AGM 2017).

And that's because, there are only two possibilities for the content of Eni's presentation regarding the "3rd version" of my dismissal: either the version is "true” or the version is "false".

Therefore, when reading this post, Eni's Board would need to be “fully convinced” about the truth or falsity of this version about my dismissal. So, in my understanding, this context became the most important fact in this Specific Instance, and should be clarified and proven by the Parties.

Therefore, when reading this post, Eni's Board would need to be “fully convinced” about the truth or falsity of this version about my dismissal. So, in my understanding, this context became the most important fact of our history of more than 21 long years, and should be clarified and proven by me and also by Eni's Board.

Now, if this “3rd version” about my dismissal is the “true version”, then I was fired for participating in the millionaire scheme just like all the other employees of illicit behavior involved in the frauds and acts of corruption in the Brazilian subsidiary of Eni and, therefore, I am nothing more than an unscrupulous and opportunistic person because, for more than 21 years, I have been supporting an untrue story to take financial advantage of Eni.

On the other hand, if this “3rd version” about my dismissal is the “false version”, Eni will need to clarify to your Stakeholders the reasons for the company to conduct my case in the way it was stated (and proven) by me in this post. 

Therefore, Eni will first need to thank me for my "ethical courage" in having followed the words and spirit of Eni's Code of Ethics and recognize that I was the “whistleblower” (as recognized by the Brazilian labor court), because, in fact, I was “unfairly” fired by executives, including members of the board of the Brazilian subsidiary of the Respondent in “retaliation”. 

Furthermore, in accordance with the corporate commitments and also the international commitments followed and accepted by company, Eni will then need to take the conduct expected by UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, "Principles 01 & 02" of the UN Global Compact and OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, described in the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct: 

“Apologize” to me and make a significant and proportionate "reparation" for the damages and losses I have suffered in all these more than 21 long years, because, in fact, my name was included in the “black list” of the Brazilian labor market, “destroying” my professional career forever and, as a consequence, I lost my “retirement”. As if it were not enough, when being unfairly fired, the Brazilian subsidiary of Eni made me “miss the chance” of having had a promising career at Petrobras alongside all my honest colleagues who have been there from 2004 until today.

So, Eni, in addition to not protecting the whistleblower, as determined by the principles enshrined in its own Code of Ethics, also attacked my honor and reputation with a “false version” of the real reasons for my dismissal, violating international commitments on human rights.

The 2nd version of my dismissal

Let us remember that, in 2010, when Eni brought the first lawsuit against me for libel and defamation, the company carried out the first attack on my honor and reputation when it presented the “2nd version” of my dismissal in the initial petition:

“To facilitate the comprehension of the Magistrate, I anticipate that, bearing in mind the communication of Douglas Flinto, while having not offered any documentary evidence that supports what was affirmed, he proposes a instrumental (functional) reconstruction of the causes that determined his termination from Agip Brazil in 2001, and used ENI's Code of Ethics with the only goal of openly and repeatedly defaming and discrediting the company.

We emphasize that, from the further developments conducted by ENI, nothing proves that any retaliation or violation of the law, nor of the consecrated principles in ENI's Code of Ethics, were practiced in prejudice to the employee from the former controlled Agip Brazil and, for bigger reason, from the former controlled ENI.

On the other hand, it is important to highlight that Douglas Flinto's termination had full justification in the reticent behavior and non-collaborative posture showed by the employee in the occasion of the company's undercover investigation that had as a goal to reveal potential prejudicial acts to the company itself, ceasing the trusting relationship with the company. His dismissal was unquestionably confirmed and recognized fully legitimate in the judicial instances in Brazil" (Doc. 01).

Despite my labor lawsuit against Eni's Brazilian subsidiary, which was filed in 2003 and finalized in 2009 — not for reasons of "merit", but for purely "procedural problems” (Doc. 02: Regional Labor Court Judgment and Doc. 03: Superior Labor Court Judgment) —, the judge of the 1st instance, due to total ignorance of what happens to whistleblowers in the global corporate world, could not see the moral damage I had suffered.

However, this judge recorded in the court decision (Doc. 04), dated March 29, 2004, that I, "fulfilling" the determinations of the Code of Ethics of Eni, provided "whistleblowing" of irregularities and illegalities that took place at AGIP Brazil. Therefore, the Brazilian Labor Court itself “recognized” that I was the “whistleblower”!

So, it is “uncontroversial” in our history: I am the “whistleblower”, despite Eni never admitting this fact!

Now, if I am the whistleblower, Eni's Board needs to “re-evaluate” our entire story based on this absolutely “uncontroversial” fact, and “manifest” itself to your Stakeholders.

Important Note: In 2015, these facts were presented to NCP Italy when I reported my allegations (“fully substantiated”) on Eni's non-compliance with the OECD Guidelines (Doc. 05), but NCP Italy decided not to proceed with this Specific Instance and filed this procedure without offering the Good Offices (Doc. 06).

It is also extremely pertinent to clarify that, when Mr. Mauro Meggiolaro, the Eni's critical shareholder, took my case for the first time to the Shareholders' Meeting (AGM) in 2017, he asked 10 (ten) questions — involving the "actions" and "omissions" of Eni’s Brazilian subsidiary and Eni itself (Doc. 07) — to be answered by the Board of Directors:

1) Are the employees, at any hierarchical level, encouraged by Eni to report to the company's internal channels - and / or the immediate superior - any fraud and corruption, misconduct of any other Eni employee, including the CEO, or even because of disagreements with the words and spirit of the company's Code of Ethics? Why is it important that its employees provide reports of irregularities and illegal activities? What are the measurable (and immeasurable) gains for the company?;

2) If an employee who reported something suffers any kind of retaliation, what actions should this employee take? Who, within the company's organizational chart, should the employee who’s suffered some type of reprisal look for? If the retaliation to an employee is confirmed, what are the attitudes that Eni will take?;

3) In 2001, after Mr. Flinto invoked Eni's "Ethics Commission" in Brazil, the CEO of the company's Brazilian operation stated (through an e-mail sent directly to Mr. Flinto) that his resignation was not a "retaliation", but rather an "administrative and organizational restructuring". Eni's headquarters in Italy says that it conducted an "internal investigation" in Brazil to investigate possible damage to the company itself and Mr. Flinto "did not cooperate" with the investigations and had a "reticent posture", resulting in a "breach of trust" and also in his "dismissal". Which of the "versions" presented by Eni about Mr. Flinto's dismissal is "true"?;

4) If there was an "internal investigation" in Brazil, why did Eni not present the results of this investigation as a "proof" in the lawsuit filed by Eni at the Court of Rome against Mr. Flinto?;

5) Eni states that the resignation of Mr. Flinto was "confirmed" by the competent courts of Brazil. Did Eni have access to the sentence of the Brazilian Justice? What was sentenced (“in full”) by the Brazilian Judge?;

6) If, in fact, Eni had access to the Brazilian court ruling, the company would know that the Judge stated in its sentence that "there was a Code of Ethics in Eni", that "there were irregularities and illegal activities in the Brazilian subsidiary of Eni" and that "Mr. Flinto provided a report to the company's internal channels" as it is imperative in the code itself. Now, if Mr. Flinto blew the whistle, if he sounded the alarm, providing a report about an alleged million-dollar scheme of fraud and corruption installed in the Brazilian subsidiary, then how come that Mr. Flinto "did not cooperate" and had a "reticent posture" in the time when the “internal investigations” were conducted, as it is stated by Eni?;

7) Why did Eni not respond to Mr. Flinto's correspondence sent to the company's "Board of Directors" under the management of Mr. Vittorio Mincato (2002), Mr. Paolo Scaroni (2009) and Mr. Claudio Descalzi (2014) reporting in full detail his retaliation case, after filing a complaint?;

8) Why, instead, did Eni choose to move a lawsuit against Mr. Flinto and the Brazilian Business Ethics Institute asking for a reparation of €15m?;

9) The ruling of the court of Rome says that the lawsuit brought by Eni against Mr. Flinto (and against the Brazilian Business Ethics Institute) is "groundless" and that the company hasn't specified any criteria for the assessment of alleged damages amounting at €15m. Why did the Board of Eni not ask the company's Internal Audit Department to conduct an "investigation" into Mr. Flinto's case?;

10) What does Eni intend to do in Mr. Flinto's case? What are the corrective actions against Mr. Flinto that can be put into practice by the company?.

However, instead of Eni answering each of these questions "individually", Eni "strategically" chose to produce a long text and coined the “corporate speech” to my detriment that had already been used by Eni on November 10, 2016, therefore, before the AGM 2017, to answer to the numerous “requests for clarification” made by Eni's Stakeholders —including the Italian government, the controlling shareholder — when I made contact to ask these Eni's Stakeholders for help.

Note that in the year 2016, I had made a complaint (Doc. 08) to the “Ethics Committee” of IIA Global, which is the largest representative institution for internal auditors worldwide. The accused were: a) Mr. Marco Petracchini (Internal Audit - Senior Executive Vice President) of Eni — who, at that time, was a member of the Board of the Italian branch office of this institution: AIIA Italy and, at the end of 2017, was the “co-author” of the second lawsuit that Eni move against me; b) Ms. Francesca Cottone, (Vice President Spot & Fraud Audit and Whistleblowing) of the Eni; and, c) Mr. Marcos Antonio Pinto (Internal Audit General Manager at Liquigás, a subsidiary of Petrobras) — who, until 2004, held a similar role in the Brazilian subsidiary of Eni.

In response to my complaint, Eni wrote to the CEO of AIIA Italy:

“The former employee of AGIP Brazil (former subsidiary of ENI, sold to third parties in 2004), after his departure in 2001, filed a lawsuit against AGIP Brazil for damages, not being successful in various degrees of judgment.

At the same time, on his own account and as a representative of the Brazilian Business Ethics Institute, Mr. Flinto began a personal battle against ENI. Since 2002, he has been sending a multitude of emails with defamatory content about the company.

In 2009, due to the repetition of these communications, ENI filed a civil lawsuit for defamation against Mr. Flinto. This process is currently in the appeal phase.

During 2014, the former employee also reinforced his communication initiatives with the creation, for alleged ethical purposes: of a website dedicated to ENI (www.enisway.com); a Blog and social media accounts of Eni's Way (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram). However, negative news about ENI is published and continuously implemented, retrieved from the network regardless of its validity, accompanied by derogatory comments and images. Even the communication received by IIA Global was published on websites and social networks.

In view of the most recent initiatives against ENI and its management and, in particular, against the entire structure directed by me and against myself, solely because of the position we hold, we are preparing the widest protection in criminal proceedings” (Doc. 09).

The 3rd version of my dismissal

Also note that, in addition to Eni using the same “corporate speech” to answer its critical shareholder during the 2017 AGM, a paragraph of this long text caught my attention because Eni presented the "3rd version" about my dismissal:

“Contrary to what Mr. Flinto believes [...] The ex-employee was fired along with other actors of illicit behavior, for reticence, for having violated the obligation of confidentiality and for trying to instrumentally use the ENI Code of Ethics for personal advantage of the company" (Doc. 10).

In order to give “credibility” to this (untrue, defamatory, and slanderous) allegation made during the 2017 AGM, Eni stated — in this same document (Doc. 10) — that the result of this "investigation" had been published in the ENI Balance Sheet 2002 (Doc. 11). 

However, in the “354” pages of this “official document” by Eni (found only after an exhaustive internet search), there is not a single line about me... And there couldn't be!

Now, it's obvious! Eni “never” carried out an “in-depth investigation” into my case, as described by Eni in its “corporate policy” on the “Whistleblowing Process” (Doc. 12) - document attached to the Respondent's Code of Ethics.

Likewise, Eni has always "refused" to carry out a "due diligence" on my case in light of the international commitments accepted and followed by the company.

It is indisputable that the content of the "3rd version" about my dismissal was an even more serious attack on my honor and reputation unfairly promoted by Eni.

The New Documents

It is also extremely important to note that, when Eni presented the “2nd version” about my dismissal in 2010, AGIP Brazil had not been a company controlled by Eni since 2004, much less in 2017, when the company presented the “3rd version” about my dismissal.

So, based on this reasoning, how did Eni stated in a “lawsuit” (2010) and in an “official document” from the company (AGM 2017) available on its corporate website the “circumstances” of my dismissal from the Brazilian subsidiary of Eni? Was Eni able to invent all this? Or did the company just “replicate and share” the information provided by AGIP Brazil about me before Eni's Brazilian assets were sold to Petrobras in 2004?

It is evident that I was always fully aware that my “unfair” dismissal from the Brazilian subsidiary of Eni had been a “retaliation”, and I also knew very well that the “internal audit” carried out at the Cuiabá Regional Sales Management (GRV- Cuiabá) had been a “fake” one because I was able to build a “DOSSIER” (Doc. 13) with more than 200 pages, proving the irregularities and illegalities in the GRV-Cuiabá despite not being an internal auditor. Therefore, how did the “experts” internal auditors of the Brazilian subsidiary of Eni not discover the conflicts of interest, internal fraud, and acts of corruption that I had denounced?

Now, if the "internal audit report" produced by AGIP Brazil had demonstrated everything I had denounced and proved by the documents contained in my "dossier", the company's first action would be the dismissal of the Regional Sales Manager of Cuiabá, his subordinates, and even his superiors, including the Commercial Director, located at the company's headquarters in Brazil.

However, the story narrated (and proven) in this post confirms that things did not happen this way... The first to be fired was the one who should not have been, that is, the one who, complying with the determinations of Eni's Code of Ethics, had the “ethical courage” to report: the whistleblower!

So, making use of the legal precepts of the Law for Access to Information (LAI), I requested that the Ministry of Transparency and General Controllership of the Union (CGU) determine that Petrobras send me all the documents referring to the investigation process of my complaint, reported to the “Petrobras Whistleblowing Channel”, in 2017, and having as a “motivating fact” the “fraudulent internal audit” carried out by AGIP Brazil in 2001.

On June 24, 2019, the CGU issued its decision, in the following terms: 

“It is decided that the appeal should be granted, so that all documents relevant to their complaint reported to the PETROBRAS Whistleblower Channel in 2017 are forwarded to the citizen” (Doc. 14).

I confess that, not even in my best dreams, I could have imagined that one day the documents produced by AGIP Brazil and by Eni itself in 2001 and 2002 would be placed in my hands, and they would make even more proof of everything that I have repeatedly said during all these more than 21 long years: “my unfair dismissal from the Brazilian subsidiary of the Eni was a retaliation imposed by those I had denounced, including members of the direction”.

Note carefully the “content” of the documents I received from Petrobras, the successor to the Eni’s Brazilian assets:

Document 01:
Internal Audit Report (Doc. 15)

Prepared on July 26, 2001, the date after my complaint was made to the commercial direction and just six days before my dismissal from the Brazilian subsidiary of Eni.

The report, signed by the general manager of internal audit of AGIP Brazil at the time, pointed out only the "false invoices" issued against the company TELEMAT, proving what I had always said: the internal audit carried out at the Regional Sales Management of Cuiabá (GRV-Cuiabá) was a farce, as it did not point out all the conflicts of interest, internal fraud, and acts of corruption practiced by a group of employees, including the regional sales manager, in collusion with customers, to rob the coffers of Eni at about US$ 20 million a year. All these irregularities and illegalities had been indicated in my complaint and proved by my “dossier”.

Document 02:
Internal Audit Memorandum to the CEO of AGIP Brazil (Doc. 16)

A memorandum dated February 7, 2002, signed by the general manager of internal audit and sent to the CEO of Eni's Brazilian subsidiary, with a copy to the directors of the financial and commercial areas, just six days after I filed a new complaint — involving the operational area at GRV-Cuiabá — when I invoked the “Ethics Commission” in Brazil.

 The internal audit found that the former regional sales manager of GRV-Cuiabá did not appear in the "official documentation" of the two service stations owned by AGIP Brazil and operated by him, proving another point of my first complaint when I was an executive at Eni's Brazilian subsidiary: these service stations were in the hands of “front-men”.

Document 03:
Facsimile of the Respondent (Doc. 17)  

A fax sent by the headquarters of the Respondent (Italy) to the CEO of AGIP Brazil, on October 03, 2002, two months after my “complaint” was delivered to each of the members of the Board of Directors of Eni and to the main executives of the company, including the global CEO and the boss of the CEO of Eni's Brazilian subsidiary.

In this document, it is requested: “As agreed by telephone, I am sending you the documentation received from Douglas Linares Flinto. I request you to analyze and deepen the various points and send me your considerations as soon as possible”.

Document 04:
Memorandum from HR and Internal Audit to the CEO of AGIP Brazil (Doc. 18)

Just four days later, on October 7, 2002, a “memorandum” was signed by the director of Human Resources together with the general manager of Internal Audit of Eni’s Brazilian subsidiary.

This said document was sent to the CEO's AGIP Brazil with the “circumstances” of my dismissal, in response to the questions from Eni's headquarters (Italy).

Note that the content of this memorandum made me prove, with my own eyes, what I had always claimed: that members of the direction were involved in the irregularities and illegalities that took place in the bowels of the Brazilian subsidiary of Eni. And that's because the executives I denounced built a "new plot" to justify my dismissal, with the sole and Machiavellian purpose of disqualifying me, transforming me from a dedicated, committed, and excellent employee who fulfilled the determinations of Eni’s Code of Ethics, into an unbalanced, unscrupulous, unreliable, disloyal, and opportunistic professional. And what is even worse! The Brazilian subsidiary of Eni claimed between the lines that I was part of the “criminal organization” that operated in GRV-Cuiabá.

Check out the full text of what AGIP Brazil said about me:

In June 2001, the president of SindiPetróleo informed the headquarters of Agip Brazil that the Regional Cuiabá of Agip Distribuidora was billing fuel for customers classified as large consumers (lower price), but, in reality, they were delivering them at gas stations. As this operation could only be carried out with the knowledge of the Regional Commercial Manager who was on vacation, the Commercial Director and the Internal Audit Manager promptly went to the city of Cuiabá to talk to the Sales Coordinator, Mr. Douglas, privately.

In the visit and in the contacts with Mr. Douglas, these executives felt from Mr. Douglas a dubious, non-collaborative position, because if on one hand he reported that there were problems at GRV-Cuiabá, on the other hand, he didn't specify clearly and objectively. It was requested from Mr. Douglas an absolute confidentiality about this meeting that had even taken place outside the company.

It turns out that Regional Sales Manager, upon returning from his vacation, was immediately informed by Mr. Douglas that the Commercial Director and the General Manager of Internal Audit were in Cuiabá to inquire about problems in the management at GRV-Cuiabá, which naturally generated discomfort and embarrassment. This characterized a breach of trust by Mr. Douglas. When asked about this procedure, Mr. Douglas didn't know how to give a satisfactory explanation and began to blackmail by threatening that he would send denunciations to ENI, in Italy, to show that the management of Agip Brazil was not taking any steps to remedy irregularities. His unfounded accusation and unbalanced posture only confirmed the breach of trust, and there was, in fact, no reason for him to continue on the company's staff, which is why he was fired.

As the investigation of the facts by the Headquarters continued, the undue procedures reported by the president of SindiPetróleo were actually confirmed. Therefore, in August 2001, there was also the dismissal of the Regional Sales Manager and two Business Advisors from GRV-Cuiabá”.

There is not the slightest doubt that this “pseudo version” of my dismissal, presented by the executives I had denounced, including members of the direction of AGIP Brazil, had been sent to the headquarters of Eni (Italy) in that year of 2002.

However, AGIP Brazil's arguments about the “circumstances” of my dismissal were not enough to convince the Board of Directors of Eni. And that's because, if the directors of Eni had accepted and agreed with the “narrative” of the Brazilian subsidiary, the matter would have died and been buried forever. However, shortly after, Eni, taking advantage of my complaint, began the investigations and the necessary measures on the very serious facts that occurred at AGIP Brazil described by me to the Board of Directors and to the top executives of Eni.

This affirmation is so true that, just over thirty days after Eni received the memorandum from AGIP Brazil with the “circumstances” of my dismissal, a Eni’s “big boss” landed in Brazil on November 12, 2002, the CEO of AGIP Petroli (Italy), Mr. Angelo Mario Taraborelli, the immediate superior of the CEO of the Eni's Brazilian subsidiary.

This illustrious visit was reported by the magazine “Agip in Action” (Doc. 19), a publication sent to all AGIP service stations installed in Brazil.

A few weeks later, in December 2002, an avalanche of layoffs began at AGIP Brazil of all those involved in the fraud I had reported to Eni, including middle and top management executives and even the director of the commercial area, who was fired in June 2003, before Eni's Brazilian assets were sold to Petrobras.

It is irrefutable in this post the fact that, the "untrue, defamatory, and libelous content" of this memorandum with the "circumstances" of my dismissal — contrary to the facts (and proofs) presented in this post and, repeatedly to Eni throughout these two decades — was “replicated” and “shared” by Eni when the company presented the “2nd version” (2010) and the “3rd version” (AGM 2017) about my dismissal.

I also need to underline something very important. These new documents were the last four pieces that were missing to completely assemble the puzzle of my story with Eni. And so, all the reprehensible and unjustifiable acts of AGIP Brazil could be visualized, as well as the questionable attitudes, misconceptions, and errors of Eni to my disfavor and contrary, not only to the corporate commitments assumed by Eni — including in its Code of Ethics, which states that the company will “protect whistleblowers” — but especially to the international commitments “accepted” and “followed” by Eni.

And it was this complete puzzle that motivated me to write to the NCP Brazil again, in July 2020, and the most relevant point of this “new complaint” was exactly the “new attack” on my honor and reputation promoted by Eni during the AGM 2017, as well as the “new documents” I had received from the successor to Eni’s Brazilian assets, that were sufficiently capable of further proving my allegations against Eni.

Note that, since it was indisputably proved in this post, I was the victim of my own whistleblowing because both Eni’s Brazilian subsidiary and Eni itself took all the “bonuses” of my complaints, and, throughout all these for years, I have been bearing all the "burdens" for having had the "ethical courage" to comply with the words and the spirit of Eni's "Code of Ethics", resulting, evidently, in countless damages and immeasurable losses to my disadvantage.

However, I am fully aware that the certainty of having done what is right does not guarantee any reward, but it does guarantee peace. And there is no greater reward than the peace of having done what is right, despite the fact that during these two decades I have been trying tirelessly and unceasingly, and with every legal instrument at my disposal, to rescue and restore my name, my honor, and my reputation that have been unjustly denigrated by Eni.

Furthermore, only the truth can be proven because it's not possible to prove lies! And this is the reason for Eni, during these two decades of "ethical clash", to be distorting and manipulating the truth of the facts without presenting proofs of its narratives instrumentally conceived in my disfavor.

And, what is even more serious, Eni is disregarding its own commitments and also the international commitments accepted and followed by the company by refusing to carry out a “due diligence” on my case in the light of the “chronology of the facts” (Doc. 20), which was sufficiently capable of “reconstructing the events” about the “actions” and “omissions” of Eni’s Brazilian subsidiary and of Eni itself to my disadvantage.

Eni & OPL 245: The Bribe of the Century

 

"The final triumph of truth & consistency over falsehood, fraud, mega corruption & persecution. The fabricated cyberstalking charge was struck out today. 

Thanks for the supports: Global Witness, Heda Resource Centre, ReCommon, Osiwa and MacArthur Foundation".

by Olanrewaju Suraju

Eni: reprisals, victimization and bad faith

In this MEMORIAL describes my story with the Italian oil giant since 2001, when I was unfairly fired — after denouncing a million-dollar “scheme” of fraud and acts of corruption, in compliance with the company’s Code of Ethics — going through the systemic imposition of “reprisals” and the strategy of “victimization” instrumentally engineered until the withdrawal of the “good offices” — offered by NCP Brazil, due to non-compliance with the “OCED Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises” — in march 2022.

The facts described (and the documents, incorporated in dozens of web links), are full proof that ENI is not only responsible for unjustly denigrating my name, my honor, and my reputation during all these years, but it is also responsible for destroying my professional career and taking my retirement out of my hands. As if that were not enough, ENI is not fulfilling the commitments assumed to its Stakeholders through its own policies and codes, declarations, norms, and procedures, as well as the international pacts, conventions, principles, and guidelines accepted and followed by ENI, including, the Italian government, the company's controlling shareholder, who appears in many of these international commitments, as an adherent, signatory or ratifying party, including United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

In these more than 20 years, ENI has never carried out a “due diligence” on my case in light of the commitments mentioned here, even though it had asked me for a “proposal for amicable settlement” — in November 2020, through the Italian Ambassador in Brazil — and never having responded to this proposal, not even after being questioned by a critical shareholder during the company's Shareholders' Meeting, held in Rome, in May 2021.

In this document mentioned here, you will know my expectations, not only regarding ENI itself, but also regarding international institutions and other Stakeholders, including the Italian government, the company's controlling shareholder. And that's because, even with the best practices, a company can cause or contribute to causing negative and harmful consequences that it did not foresee or was unable to avoid.

Eni & OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

Even with the various non-conformities of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, ENI gave up the "good offices" offered by NCP Brazil.

In my case, the Italian oil giant continues to fail to comply with its own commitments (codes and policies, declarations, norms and procedures) as well as international commitments accepted and followed by the company.

My fight will continue!

The suffering of some whistleblowers...

“… it kills them when I do interviews, it kills them when I testify in court, it kills them when I speak to law students, or make speeches to the European Parliament as I did recently.” Also, the corporation’s objective is to punish the individual who dared oppose it and in such a way deter other lawyers from doing the same"

by Steven Donziger in the Podcast Dr. Dawn Carpenter

"The situation becomes particularly serious where corporations irresponsibly decide to use their unlimited resources to distort justice targeting individuals that try to counter their unethical or illegal conducts such as whistleblowers, leakers, human rights activists, and even lawyers"

"Such unethical actions also generate a deterrent effect in that they aim at discouraging other individuals from safeguarding society and interfering with corporate activities. Corporations abuse the legal system to “punish” individuals that have become persona non grata within the corporate world. This irrespective of what it could be the final outcome of the judicial proceeding. The aim here is not to win the court cases but to use the proceedings themselves to inflict an exemplary punishment on the individuals that are forced to participate in them to defend themselves from the instrumentally conceived charges"

by Constantino Grasso - Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics Blog

Read more in this link. 

David & Goliath

Bob Kearns’ story against #Ford in the 60s has a lot in common with my own story!

There are many “David” in the corporate world... I am one of them!