Analysis on toy safety in regards to the recall of toys manufactured under Mattel Corporation in 2007
Introduction
The toy industry is a large industry which generates about $71 billion in the business market. The toy companies need to generate toys that are suitable for the children to play with and will not cause any hazards to the children. China and USA are in the worlds spotlight when it comes to the toy industry. About 60% of toy manufacturing happens in the China. A lot of companies manufacturing toys in the U.S. have established subsidiaries in China. Mattel Corporation is one of these companies. Mattel Inc. was started by Elliot Handler and Harold Matson at a garage in 1944. Letters from the founder’s last names and first name were used to create the company name. The company’s first products include doll house furniture and picture frames. The company has 3 different affiliates; American Girl Brands, Fischer Price Brands and Girl and Boy Brands. The three major buyer of the company are Toys’R’Us, Target and Wal-Mart. Its competitors are RC2 and Hasbro. The following essay contains a case analysis of Mattel Company’s product recall of 2007.
Discussion
In 2007 the Mattel Corporation had to recall some of its products since they contained lead based paints and strong magnets which can cause major health problems to children if swallowed (Lawrence & Weber, 2011). Most of the toys recalled had been manufactured in China. About 21 million toys were recalled in total making this one of the largest product recalls in American History (Lawrence & Weber, 2011).
I believe that Mattel Corporation proceeded in an ethical and socially responsible manner in regard to the 2007 safety issue. According to the history of Mattel Corporation, it has had a good reputation in the previous years by being a good corporate citizen. Mattel developed the Global Manufacturing Principles in 2007 (Lawrence & Weber, 2011). The Global Manufacturing Principles provide a code of conduct on working conditions. It included the steps to ensuring product safety of toys made in China. The Global Manufacturing principles covered the workers of Mattel Corporation as well as its suppliers and contractors. Mattel hired S. Prakash Sethi who is supposed to ensure the principles are followed by carrying out independent audits at least once in every three years. Suppliers who did not comply with the principles according to the audit reports were dismissed. When Mattel learnt that their products could be harmful to health as some magnets could be swallowed and lead paint was present in some of their toys, they voluntarily issued recalls of their products. In a year’s period, Mattel had recalled 21 million toys. The Mattel Corporation also agreed to a settlement with 39 states that required it to pay $12 million dollars. The money is to be used on informing people about the dangers of lead poisoning and lead paint.
In 2009, Mattel established a Global Citizenship Report that would show Mattel’s efforts for global citizenship. It aimed at developing their standards to reflect environmental stewardship and labor practices within the company. The report addresses employee safety and health, social compliance issues, environmental management, employee rights in regards to working hours, wages, living conditions, ethic, cultural and philosophical differences in the countries in which Mattel operates.
Issues that Mattel should have handled differently
On learning of the issues in its products, Mattel delayed in reporting the matter to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by one and a half months. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is designed to protect consumers from health or death risks from the products under its jurisdiction. In addition, it monitors, inspects, fines and prosecutes firms that fail to follow their regulations. The Consumer Product Safety Commission requires that a company reports any recall/defect within 24 hours of its detection (CPSC, 2011). Mattel Company failed to follow this regulation by not reporting the problem to CPSC within a day of its discovery. Mattel got an alert on possible contamination of their toys with lead paint on 8th yet they filed the full report with Consumer Product Safety Commission on July 26th (CPSC, 2011). The lack of notifying the CPSC of the issue was one of the major mistakes Mattel made and it could have done this differently by adhering to the regulations of CPSC.
Mattel Corporation then prematurely placed the blame on the Chinese manufacturers without enough proof (Hau, Tseng & Hoyt, 2008). The blame on the China manufacturers was placed devoid of a proper analysis of what actually happened. Shifting of the blame also delayed action on the matter. Due to the impromptu premature shift of the blame, the chief executive officers of Mattel Corporation had to publicly apologize and they did these through their website and the media (Hau, Tseng & Hoyt, 2008). On detection of the problem, Mattel should have ensured it follows the standard procedure first before proceeding to informing the involved agencies. By doing this, Mattel could have avoided part of the negative impact that was brought about by the issue.
Consumer Product Safety Commission failed to use the resources available for verifying product safety as they could have stopped the unsafe products from reaching the market. Mattel toys could have avoided the scandal if they had followed the proper review and testing procedures put in place. Both the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Mattel could have prevented the toys from reaching the market.
One would say greed is to blame for the exposure of potentially harmful toys to children but in a capitalist society my opinion is that Mattel Company is responsible for the dangerous toys. The government has its agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is supposed to ensure that toys produced are safe for use by children. However, the Mattel recall case of 2007 shows that this agency is not effective. The CPSC has a large magnitude of job which may create lack of efficiency (CPSC, 2011). The Mattel recall posed a great challenge to the Consumer Product Safety Commission as it also had a case to answer as to why they never prevented the exposure of the dangerous Mattel toys to the market. Despite this the CPSC is not to blame for the exposure of the toys to the market. Mattel has imposed a system through which safe toys are manufactured. Unfortunately, a weakness present in the system was noticed by a sub-contractor of a main vendor and he/she utilized it. Mattel Company should also have ensured that the regulations in China’s consumers Union are at the same level as those of the United States (Lawrence & Weber, 2011). Due to the above shortcomings of Mattel Corporation I believe they are fully responsible for the exposure of harmful toys to the market.
The best way to ensure the safety of children’s toys
Different entities have different views on how the safety of children’s toys can be enhanced. They include; consumer advocates, government regulators, retailers and the toy industry.
Consumer Advocates
They believe that the way to ensure toy safety is by making it mandatory for toys to undergo federal regulatory inspection and testing before the toys are released to the market. It also feels that the suppliers should maintain and comply with the rigorous regulations and standards that have been put in place in the interest of public safety. The consumer advocates suggest that the systems for testing toy safety should be regularly evaluated and improved. The individuals conducting the toy evaluations should also be regularly assessed. The consumer advocates want to improve the confidence and trust the consumer has for the products by ensuring the products are safe since many consumers trust neither government nor the toy industry to ensure safety of their children. The consumers need to be sure that before a toy is placed on the shelf it is safe for their child to use.
Government regulators
They are interested in having a dialogue with China which is the largest toy manufacturer. Government regulators want to ensure China meets the American safety standards when they manufacture their products (Hill, 2006). In this way the U.S government will prevent entry of sub-standard and dangerous products into the market. The government needs some criteria’s to be put up or improved. The criteria’s include; good communication, incorporation of safety systems, good training of employees, increased enforcement and surveillance activities to ensure that imports coming into the country have achieved the American standard and regulations (Hill, 2006).
The Toy Industry
It believes that the way to ensure children’s safety when using toys is by testing toys before releasing them to the market and also keeping products that may compromise children’s safety away from the counter. The toy industry has a mandatory program that comprises; developing testing methods, testing, implementing legislation by working with the government and procedures for verifying that their products conform to safety standards of the U.S (Hill, 2006).
Retailers
Retailers want federal legislation reinforced and improvement on safety measures employed by manufacturers. They advocate for better packaging and better stamping of products with a production code to make it easier to trace safety issues in case they come up (Hau, Tseng & Hoyt, 2008). The retailers also claim that toy safety can be improved by improving the recall system and establishing a strong Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Standard setting organizations
These organizations consider the best way to ensuring safety of toys as by setting the necessary standards to ensure product safety. They insist that the standards should in turn be followed to the letter as setting of standards alone without them being followed doesn’t help much. Standard setting organizations understand the dangers that can be brought about by toys to children and, hence, strive to ensure that the standards implemented ensure the safety of the product.
Reasons for differences in the point of views for toy safety
The different groups are all entitled to ensuring product safety in their sectors. The variances in the points of view denoted by each group show the range in the concern of safety in the toy manufacturing business. The different views in the safety precautions to be taken can be attributed to the different duties of the groups. However, all the groups emphasize on toy safety and its effects on the consumer. All the groups share responsibility for consumer safety form the manufacturer, store shelf and the consumer too. Product recall is also sometimes involved. All the groups offer protection at different points and no one wants to be held responsible for losing the trust of the consumers due to problems in consumer safety. In case of a problem in lack of consumer safety, all the groups are affected.
How the society can protect children from harmful toys
Opinions on how the society can protect children from harmful toys differ. One of the ways this can be done is by backing constant monitoring of product safety. People can also avoid buying things or making in them in countries which do not uphold the same level of standards as their country. Society has the right to speak out against products which do not fulfill the safety standards. Society should also produce any ideas they may have which can be useful in promoting the safety of toys.
Most importantly, caregivers and parents should never assume that toys are safe just because they have undergone safety testing procedures. . Many caregivers tend to view toys as innocent and safe for their children and may overlook the potentiality of the toy casing harm to their children. They should assist their children to play with the toys whenever the need arises and should also make an effort to watch their children play with the toys.
Parents should also ensure they read the tags that come along with toys as some toys are only suitable for play with children of certain ages. Parents should also replace the children’s toys once broken and should not allow them to play with broken toys as some contain small parts which may cause chocking especially in children who are very young. Broken toys may contain fallen off parts that young children can consume which can make them choke. Choking hazards are the most prevalent dangers of toys even if the toy is not bought with small parts. Caregivers should also use their parental instinct when it comes to which toys to buy for children of different ages.
Toy safety is now a priority for the Mattel Company. They aim at making toys which are safe for children and also toys that the children love. Mattel takes full responsibility for the safety and quality of its toys. It is now employing strict principles of product design, manufacture and product distribution. In doing this, Mattel is gaining back trust from the consumers. Despite, recall of Mattel toys in 2007, it still has consumers and many of the consumers who avoided the toys for a while after the recall are now comfortable with purchasing its products.
Appropriate roles for stakeholders
Stakeholders hold a powerful position when it comes to ensuring toys is safe (Hill, 2006). The stakeholders should question toy safety of the toy manufacturing companies. They ought to decline to patronize a company if it doesn’t conform to the regulations of toy safety or it fails to meet their expectations (CPSC, 2011). For stakeholders to ensure toy safety to the consumers they should apply internal operating techniques that are laid out to exceed or meet regulation laws or compliance that are enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission of the U.S. and regulatory colleagues around the world (CPSC, 2011).
Mattel’s operation declarations state;
- Play fair- in this way the organization aligns company values with decision making.
- Play Together-by working with partners, regulators, employees and vendors to distribute toys that children love and caretakers trust.
- Play to Grow-by pledging a sustainable future via the determination to work smarter and lessen the impact on the environmental degradation
- Play with Passion-by volunteering in the society to help underserved kids to experience the delight of play.
Conclusion
Adherence to consumer safety regulations could have avoided the recall of Mattel’s products in 2007. The corporate world is under a lot of pressure to deliver good quality goods and safe goods to their consumers. Safety of products is not only important in the toy industry but also in other industries such as car manufacture. Companies such as General Motors are required to manufacture their automobiles to a certain standard of safety. Greed is the root problem of safety issues in manufacturing issues since in most cases it is usually in the pursuit of making a lot of profits that manufacturers disregard the safety of the consumers. Manufacturers ought to acknowledge that ignorance of safety standards and regulations can lead to dire consequences and sometimes may cause the company to incur losses which are much greater than the profits they made. Regard for consumer safety should be at the forefront of a company’s objectives if it hopes to build a lasting relationship with its consumers and maintain its position in the consumer market.
References
CPSC Press Release (2011). CPSC Adopts Testing Requirements for Children's Toys. Retrieved
phthalates-childrens-toys-and-child-care-articles-stay-enforce>
Hau, L., Tseng, M., & Hoyt, D. W. (2008). Unsafe for Children: Mattel's Toy Recalls and Supply
Chain Management. Stanford Case, p. 7. Retrieved from < http://hbsp.harvard.edu/>.
Hill, W. L. (2006). Global Business Today. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Lawrence, A. T., & Weber, J. (2011). Business and society, stakeholders, ethics, public policy,
13th Ed.. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
