acrossdapark said:
It is. They state it in their reports of giving yearly among other initiatives they have. However as a company if they continue to downsize the departments that work on those core principals then they become less of a core principal and at some point cease to exist.
A core principal is a stated goal of a company. No matter how little they spend on it the principal, as long as it remain s stated still exists. Now if they choose to change their principles or their policies and or actions fly in the face of same, that is their business. Principals exist in a binary state, not shades of gray; they either are or are not.
The point remains, as long as they state that preservation is a core principal and they continue to reduce their conservation foot print, they are violating their own policies. Not the first time in business that stated goals become inconvenient and thus ignored in the face of austerity, certainly will not be the last.
Here is a good example, I worked for a company who had a "core value," of "putting employees first in all things." However when their contracts started to dry up, they cut benefits directly, removed high dollar, non-direct employees, and cut salaries across the company. Did this make sense from a business perspective? sure. Was it necessary? I don't know. Was it ethical? probably not. Did it violate stated goals? Certainly.