Joint Communication AL ITA 5/2025 of 01 July 2025

On September 4, 2025, the Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations in Geneva presented its response to the Joint Communication AL ITA 5/2025 put forth by the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, the Working Group on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas, Special Rapporteur (SR) on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, along with the SRs on the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, on the right to food, on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes.  The Joint Communication brought attention to information concerning the divestments of various companies including Eni S.p.A., which is headquartered in Italy, as well as Shell Plc, TotalEnergies SE, and ExxonMobil Corporation’s Nigerian subsidiaries. It was reported that these divestments occurred without a cleanup of the pollution they caused in Nigeria. Said pollution continues to pose a threat  to the human rights of nine Niger Delta states and the divestment by these companies from their subsidiaries affects the proper remediation of the damages and abuses caused, as well as the provision of compensation to those affected.

The Italian company Eni S.p.A, through the former, now divested, subsidiary Nigerian Agip Oil Company (NAOC) was reported to have caused considerable damage. The Bayelsa State Oil and Environmental Commission (Bayelsa Commission) reported that by 2023 most of the the polluted sites continued to await remediation, and that the remediation that has been granted fails to meet international standards. The communication also mentions NAOC’s continued discharge of toxic wastewater and flared associated gas close to communities within Delta state. Researchers project that the total amount spilled in the Niger Delta by these companies reaches an estimated 9-13 million barrels of oil between 1958 and 2010. An academic study referenced in the communication found out that Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited and NAOC jointly accounted for 70% of the oil spills in the region from 2006 to 2020. The document brings to attention that Nigerian law requires that operating oil companies have the legal obligation to clean up any oil spilled from their facilities and assets, regardless of the cause, as well as the responsibility to restore the environment where damage has been caused and establish a decommissioning and abandonment fund. The divestment of the assets  of these international oil companies in the Niger Delta has occurred without the fulfillment of these obligations. The obligation for the cleanup of these companies’ pollution, site reclamation, and decommission passes to the buyer companies once the divestment is completed. The communication notes that there is considerable fear that buyer companies are not equipped with sufficient financial resources to carry out awaiting remedial work and compensation for past abuses.

The points highlighted in this communication culminate in an expression of “grave concern” about the effect that the divestment of these companies, including Eni S.p.A., from their subsidiaries in Nigeria may have on human rights. Responsibility was given to the home States of the implicated companies, pointing out that the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) hold states accountable to ensuring that business enterprises respect human rights across the entirety of their operations. The communication concludes by seeking clarification and provision of information by those addressed on the following five points:

1. Additional Information about the allegations mentioned in the communication.
2. The measures taken to identify and respond to the impacts the divestment processes have had on human rights.
3. The progress on the requirement/encouragement to the companies within their territory/jurisdiction towards implementing human rights due diligence processes for the identification, prevention, mitigation, and the accounting on how their operations and the aforementioned divestment process has impacted human rights (on the basis of the UNGPs and international law).
4. The measures to prevent ecological disaster recurrence caused by companies domiciled in their territory. 
5.  The measures taken to provide the persons affected by activities occurring outside their territory by business enterprises in their jurisdiction with access to remedy in their country (through judicial/extra-judicial mechanisms).

Italy’s response to Communication AL ITA 5/2025

Italy’s response starts by stressing the importance of the UNGPs, resulting from the UN ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework, and the functional elements that are introduced for preventing and managing any effects business activities may have on human rights. The reply points out Italy’s pioneering role in 2016 in adopting a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (NAP BHR), currently in its second period from 2021-2026. The response then elaborates on the contents and relevant commitments of the current NAP BHR, including its general framework and the current monitoring mechanisms in place. There is a referral to three of the five specific questions made on the Joint Communication, omitting those that refer to the violations related to Eni S.p.A.’s divestment and Italy’s actions to mitigate the effects of these violations on human rights.

In turn, Italy’s response focuses on highlighting the existing national legal and non-judicial mechanisms that ensure that companies do not commit corporate abuses of human rights. The first mechanism mentioned is Legislative Decree No. 231/2001 which incentivizes companies’ adoption of effective organisation and management structures as means of crime prevention and the enhancement of compliance with legal obligations in economic activities. Italy also mentions the provision of judicial remedies dedicated towards victims of companies’ violations of fundamental rights, bringing up the possibility to initiate the corresponding civil or criminal action claims for damage compensation, as well as condemnation. There are corporate civil liability requirements governed by the general compensatory liability framework found  in the Civil Code’s Articles 1218 and 2043. Legislative Decree No. 231/2001 also provides suitable mechanisms to address complex forms of corporate crime, as well as establishing a dual sanctioning system that entails the application of monetary and interdictory sanctions. The communication alleges that this has created improvements in companies’ compliance levels. In relation to Italy’s  2nd NAP BHR (2021-2026), a particular alignment to the UN 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals and the strengthening of the implementation to the UNGPs. Italy commits to the promotion of BHR in international fora, reinforcing their role in international cooperation regarding the topic. There is special attention being paid to environmental protection, health, decent work, and protection of human rights defenders. 

Non-judicial remedies are also discussed in Italy’s response, which coexist with the Italian judicial system and present characteristics that provide simpler and effective solutions that are faster, cheaper, and more accessible. This includes the National Contact Point (NCP), which encourages the implementation of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises in Italy. The NCP regularly convenes with different stakeholders to discuss and establish strategies aimed at promoting these guidelines nationally. They also handle specific instances that are brought up by stakeholders concerning supposed non-compliance of the OECD Guidelines by enterprises resulting in negative consequences. The NCP does this through good offices in order to find a solution in accordance with the guidelines.

Eni S.p.A.’s response to Communication AL ITA 5/2025

Eni S.p.A. issued the response Prot. SOST/3/2025/P to the communication AL ITA 5/2025 on the 3rd of September of 2025. The response was authored by Francesca Ciardiello, the head of sustainability of Eni S.p.A., and addressed towards the Special Procedures branch of the OHCHR.  Eni S.p.A. talks about the allegations in their response, by explicitly refuting them and establishing how the communication does not “reflect the reality” of  Eni S.p.A.’s operations. The reply emphasizes their long-standing commitment to human rights and their continued following of the UNGP and other international regulations.

The reply emphasizes their long-standing commitment to human rights and their continued following of the UNGP and other international regulations. Since 2007, Eni S.p.A. has had their own guidelines for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, which is also supported by a 2018 Statement on the Respect for Human Rights which was formalized in the Respect for Human Rights in Eni S.p.A. 2023 policy. They also outline their “multidisciplinary and multi-level” model used within their business process, which is used to manage negative human rights impact and is said to be continuously improved. Eni S.p.A.’s response mentions their human rights training, stakeholder engagement, grievance and remedy mechanisms, whistleblowing process, as well as their transparency and reporting measures.

The reply then focuses on Eni S.p.A.’s 2024 sale of NAOC Ltd (now OERNL) to Oanda PLC, which is Nigeria’s main energy company. This transaction was part of a strategy put in place by the Nigerian Government to increase the local company involvement in onshore oil assets. Eni S.p.A. conducted a due diligence process following the sale to verify Oando’s financial and operational capabilities, which was verified by the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), which confirmed that Oando was capable of meeting regulatory, safety, and environmental requirements and compliance. In their communication, Eni S.p.A. also covered their responsibilities following decommissioning and abandonment through a plan that was prepared prior to the divestment. Eni S.p.A. also claimed that NAOC successfully identified, remediated, and cleaned up 100% of the spills affecting its assets.

Final Remarks

Italy’s reply to the Joint Communication fails to answer the questions about Eni S.p.A.'s divestment or the events that occurred in Nigeria linked to the Italian multinational company. There is no discussion made regarding the allegations made and Italy’s extraterritorial obligations in this specific case. The reply largely focuses on national BHR frameworks, the corresponding Legislative Decrees and EU Directives, as well as Italian judicial and non-judicial mechanisms. There are also claims within the communication which are not supported by concrete evidence, which might bring into question the credibility of the statements.

Eni S.p.A.’s response appears to be resolute in rejecting the accusations made in the Joint Communication and emphasizes their long-standing commitment to human rights through an array of internal policies, as well as their alignment to the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines. These commitments, rather than being legally binding obligations, are mostly voluntary. Eni S.p.A. presents itself with a strong risk management narrative but fails to provide specific data to back these claims and they shift any responsibility regarding the sale to the host state due to Nigeria’s approval of Oando and of the transaction. The response is seemingly process-oriented, rather than providing evidence-based claims and delegates responsibility rather than assuming it.

In conclusion, while both responses vary in terms of tone, the Italian government and Eni S.p.A. share similarities when it comes to formal commitment to UNGPs and OECD guidelines for BHR and potential gaps in their actual implementation. Both avoid addressing the concrete and future outcomes in Nigeria as a result of NAOC’s activity. Italy frames BHR as an issue of governance and sustainable development strategy, while Eni S.p.A. presents it more through a lens of compliance with procedure and risk management.