Business Ethics - Rosia Montana: Political and Social Risk Management in the Land of Dracula

What might opponents have done to raise the profile of their concerns and slow or stop the mine's redevelopment?
A group of politicians and non-governmental organizations were trying to block the redevelopment of the gold mine at Rosia Montana. At first, these seemed to be the only opponent groups fighting against the revival of this project, nevertheless new associations and recently formed group of citizens began to protest because of the negative impact and threats that this project represented.

Gabriel Resources’ initial offer seemed to be attractive in terms of job creation (2000 additional jobs), industry development (gold production) and lodging (improved installments), nevertheless the detrimental effects on the environment, the loss of its cultural richness, the relocation of its people, as well as the lack of transparency as to what the scope of the project could be, were some of the reasons which could’ve delayed the process from being accepted. Romania’s historical, cultural and political contexts could not be left aside dimmed by the so-promised potential returns that the company expected in detrimental of the local’s welfare. “Gold gave Rosia Montana life, but it also brought premature death” (Page 3), and the latter explains the irreversibility of the side effects derived from this initiative.

TAX SHIELDS/ TRANSPARENCY AND SCOPE OF THE PROJECT – The government never released any concrete reasons as to why Gabriel Resources was selected, no transparency was seen throughout. GR’s fit for the job was never assessed and the so called DAD strategy did not seem very legal either. Villagers argued against the inefficient state-run operation left behind, but there was not proof whatsoever that this problem was going to be solved with the entrance of GR.