Mattel’s Product SafetyJoin now to read essay Mattel’s Product SafetyMattel was believed to be one of the most trusted toy companies around the world that operated in 155 countries. They produce the most famous toys for children, such as Barbie, Cabbage patch kids, Fisher-Price, and some many other amazing toys. Beyond concerns about marketing to children, Mattel, Inc. is making a serious commitment to business ethics. For example, Mattel instituted a code of conduct called “Global Manufacturing Principles.” These principles required all business partners to commit to ethical standards that relate to safety, wages, and adherence to local laws [Mattel.com]. However, recently Mattel was involved in a product quality and safety dispute. Since August 1, 2007, Mattel has recalled in 30 million toys because of its quality and safety defects. Mattel lost not only their profits but also trust, an important role in corporate social responsibility (CSR).To achieve it, businesses are responsible for their production causes and consequences and accompany with their ethical operations and health and safety use (Ciulla, Martin, & Solomon, 2007). Mattels product safety issue undermines the corporate social responsibility issue in three perspectives: quality control, not acting beyond complaints, and disclosure of information. Thus, Mattel is able to regain its CSR through the changes and effort from these three perspectives.
Quality ControlIn the case of Mattel, the company and its Chinese subcontractors should simultaneously and corporately exam the product quality. However, people know that toys with extra lead and non-standardized magnetic batteries are under the brand name of Mattel, not the small Chinese contractors. Therefore, Mattel ought to know that they have the social responsibility to inspect the quality; otherwise, their corporate image will be damaged. Moreover, the smart ones should know trust from consumers is extremely important in this highly competitive and unpredictable market (Datamonitor, 2007). Mattels CSR is negatively influenced by failing to inspect the quality of import, especially for Mattels vulnerable consumers in which mostly are babies and small children.
The Problem
Despite the high quality of the high quality M-Droid toys, Mattel fails to ensure that the quality of their M-Droid toys is not compromised (Grossman et al, 1997: 49).
Other Questions
As a result of Mattel’s failure to meet certain standards, their brand and its Chinese suppliers have to consider other options for their products (Datamonitor, 2007: 38). These include using third party third party suppliers (such as Toys N’ Roses, Ziff – Zee, etc.). Some other alternatives, including a lower quality manufacturer with a long and low price range or using other third party suppliers, might have better results. In general, such third parties should try to be more transparent, transparent, and responsible about the quality of their M-Droid products (Datamonitor, 2007, 38). The failure of the Chinese subcontractors to inspect the M-Droid products and to demonstrate compliance in China is seen as a direct interference with a contract that is agreed upon (Datamonitor, 2007: 39). In other words, Mattel is not responsible for all the defects found in their M-Droid products, but that the Chinese suppliers do not comply with their contract.
Recommendations to Mattel
Mattel made a statement regarding the possibility of using other third party suppliers in China.
Mattel’s second point which was addressed in the second line of this issue was regarding the need for stricter standards during the first year (Datamonitor, 2007). It should be noted, though, that, based on the quality of the M-Droid products, they would not normally use such suppliers because they are not in competition with Chinese products. Furthermore, they are not required to provide the manufacturing services in China as they do with other third party suppliers. The Chinese suppliers also cannot buy or sell their M-Droid products because there are no other market in Japan (Ziff – Zee). It can certainly be seen, however, that Mattel would like to avoid such issues so that we know the truth about the supply chain within Mattel if appropriate.
There is only one point in the second line that should be taken into consideration. All the Chinese suppliers of Mattel’s M-Droid products are in competition with Chinese imports. Even though some of their M-droid products may have different manufacturing standards, many of the products at Mattel’s factories were manufactured in the US, Japan and Europe. Therefore, their competition in China is limited if there is a requirement in the Chinese import regulations to meet minimum (Nelson, 1994/1994).
In conclusion, here is the third main recommendation from this issue that should be taken into consideration on Mattel’s part regarding the need to comply with Chinese import licensing requirements: make sure that not only the US, but China is an international market for Mattel’s parts. As much as Mattel might like to avoid the problems found in other countries of the world, as long as Mattel complies with Chinese import regulations, they should avoid import licensing requirements which have
Other companies should learn the lesson from Mattels scandal, which the case cost Mattel $30 million to recall the defected products because of its failure to conduct a quality control audit on the production process on one of its suppliers. Outsourcing companies like Mattel needs to write into contracts to specify product quality, service expectations and the right to conduct audits on product safety. However, companies need to realize that conducting a quality control process is not due to legal compliance, it must go beyond compliance.
Beyond ComplianceAs it has been discussed above, corporations that are outsourcing cannot as well “outsource” their social responsibilities. The Mattel case is a clear example in which the corporation was found liable for not assuring their product meeting the safety standards. However, it is revealed on Mattels website that Mattel is conducting a strict policy to request all of its business partners to ensure the compliance with Mattels Global Manufacturing Principles. The principles cover several areas of concern and practices such as product safety and quality, environment, customs, evaluation and monitoring, and compliance. In addition, Mattel has the full access for on-site inspections and any records that will enable the company to determine the compliance with principles (Mattel.com). Thus, the problem shifts to whether Mattel had effectively implemented those polices.
According to a survey conducted among the Fortune 500 companies, 96 percent of the business leaders agree that social responsibility policies are important to the future of United States, however, 40 percent of the corporations are having no plan to implement those polices (Sebor, 2006). Sebor (2006) mentioned that many corporations are implementing social responsibility policies under the social pressure and in the effort of building public relations rather than a true change from the fundamental. Some corporations are using the business