Eni's requirements 03 and 04

“Involvement of the Italian National Contact Point in the Good offices procedure”;

“Exposure of ENI's position, as well as the advice of the Italian NCP in this procedure, in the final decision even in the event of early closure of the procedure".

Important Comments:

The demands made by Eni in relation to the NCP Italy are unnecessary, since, the OECD Procedural Guidance already contemplate the “support” of the NCP of the country in which the company was incorporated to “the host NCP”, as is the NCP Brazil in this Specific Instance.

Therefore, according to these OECD guidelines, it will be up to the NCP Italy to make every effort to help the parties resolve the issues “by providing adequate and timely assistance”.

Note that for all these years, Eni has refused to carry out a “due diligence” on my case. And this corporate conduct continues to be practiced in this Specific Instance, directly violating the guidelines of the OECD Guide.

Furthermore, the “attacks” (that I fully substantiated) against my honor and reputation violate “Article 12” of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. 

So, Eni is also violating the guidelines contained in UNGP 31 (Doc. 01), including with regard to Principle 04 that establishes the nexus between the State and companies:

Principle 4: 

“States should take additional steps to protect against human rights abuses by business enterprises that are owned or controlled by the State, or that receive substantial support and services from State agencies such as export credit agencies and official investment insurance or guarantee agencies, including, where appropriate, by requiring human rights due diligence”.

Commentary: 

“States individually are the primary duty-bearers under international human rights law, and collectively they are the trustees of the international human rights regime.

Where a business enterprise is controlled by the State or where its acts can be attributed otherwise to the State, an abuse of human rights by the business enterprise may entail a violation of the State’s own international law obligations. Moreover, the closer a business enterprise is to the State, or the more it relies on statutory authority or taxpayer support, the stronger the State’s policy rationale becomes for ensuring that the enterprise respects human rights.

Where States own or control business enterprises, they have greatest means within their powers to ensure that relevant policies, legislation and regulations regarding respect for human rights are implemented. Senior management typically reports to State agencies, and associated government departments have greater scope for scrutiny and oversight, including ensuring that effective human rights due diligence is implemented. (These enterprises are also subject to the corporate responsibility to respect human rights).

A range of agencies linked formally or informally to the State may provide support and services to business activities. These include export credit agencies, official investment insurance or guarantee agencies, development agencies and development finance institutions. Where these agencies do not explicitly consider the actual and potential adverse impacts on human rights of beneficiary enterprises, they put themselves at risk – in reputational, financial, political and potentially legal terms – for supporting any such harm, and they may add to the human rights challenges faced by the recipient State (In this case, the institutions officially linked to the Italian State are the largest shareholders of the Respondent: the Ministry of Economy and Finance, and CDP SpA).

Given these risks, States should encourage and, where appropriate, require human rights due diligence by the agencies themselves and by those business enterprises or projects receiving their support” 

In this sense, it would be pertinent and appropriate for the NCP Italy to provide assistance in this Specific Instance if, perhaps, the NCP Brazil, through my manifestation, is not able to raise awareness and sensitize, convince, and motivate the Respondent to carry out a "due diligence".

Note that NCP Italy, is part of the Italian government, the “controlling shareholder” of Eni. Therefore, the NCP Italy will be able to contact the “government structure” of Italy so that of the Board of Directors of Eni is “required” to carry out a “due diligence” on my case.

Also note that, according to the new chapter on human rights, introduced in the OECD Guidelines, from 2011 onwards, it is agreed that the principle of a company's liability is determined by its adverse impacts, in line with UNGP 31.