Yes, redundancy is a good thing. On the other hand, addressing it for an older employee after an injury makes their motivations sound suspect. Would they have treated a younger employee in similar circumstances the same way (because, yes, younger people do get injured)? For that matter, why didn't they have redundancy built into an important role from the outset (making it policy would reduce the likelihood of ageist behaviour)?
Because stakeholders revenue and all that very important stuff on the yearly reports which loses relevance the next year. Because both bonus and dividends are calculated on yearly basis, I'm not sure there's much motivation on the decision makers to put enough weight on the long-term plans. Lip service aside, yeah the most obvious things will be made redundant, all the rest getting pushed aside as "cost of doing business". And they're not even completely wrong.
