Dangerous - and somewhat straw-like - road to go down there though, Bruce_Wayne, since highs and lows for capital investment are effectively "conditions of employment" for shareholders who theoretically receive a return on their investment which covers the risk premium of investing. And which shareholders, I imagine, would be very leery of connecting any return on capital to conditions for labour...
As far as "2000 redundancies" go, your question treats the concept as if it were an immutable natural force like the wind. (To be fair, much of the media does the same thing. "Business problems" = share price fall = cut costs = sack workers = natural way of things.)
What is the cost to society or social capital of 2000 redundancies versus 2000 people in jobs? Why, it might even be asked, are institutional investors bailed out for the billions of dollars/euros/pounds in knowingly worthless but temporarily profitable loans that they underwrote and labour on the other hand is required, as if God's hand had reached down and put the Mark of Cain on their foreheads, to forego the fruits of that labour.