Eni's requirement 02

“Participation in the procedure for mutual clarification without any payment of compensation for damages, nor labour reinstatement, given the absence of any title of liability on the part of ENI”.

Important Comments: 

This requirement is genuinely legitimate, provided that Eni does everything in accordance with what the OECD Guide directs multinational companies to do, as will be described in this website.

Note that, in the global corporate world, it is indisputable that every multinational company, especially those that benefit from reputational gains, by propagating to their Stakeholders that they “accept” and “follow” the OECD Guidelines, as is the case with Eni, has full knowledge that when a multinational company causes any kind of damage, there must be a “reparation” proportionate to the damage caused.

Now, this relationship between “cause” and “effect”, that is, “damage” and “reparation”, is described in the commitments assumed by Eni — whether corporate commitments, such as the “Eni's Statement on respect for human rights” (Doc. 01), whether the international commitments “accepted” and “followed” by Eni —, which state that "reparation" is due, if the company harms or contributes to harm someone.

Therefore, it is not enough for Eni to make this type of demand and machiavelly state to the NCP Brazil that my objective was never to rescue my name, my honor, and my reputation, but rather to obtain an "indemnity", and Eni forgets that “reparation” is due when a multinational corporation cause (or contributes to causing) harm to someone. Instead, the Eni should accept the contributions of NCP Brazil in this Specific Instance, as directed by the OECD itself, in order to verify if, in fact, the company caused (or did not cause) harm to me.

However, in order for this verification to be achieved, Eni will need to have attitudes guided by the OECD Guide and not just stating to the NCP Brazil that it has no responsibility in relation to my case and giving up the Good Offices, justifying that my “opening speech” (Doc. 02), made available by NCP Brazil to Eni (in February 2022), was not “in line” with its “requirements”.

Now, this is not the attitude of a company that claims to be committed to the premises, principles, and values of “Responsible Business Conduct”, which is the “ethical foundation” of the OECD Guidelines.