Many people have come up to gauge themselves regarding the best choice of methods which the community can use so that they keep children safe. The most probably best answer is that the society must be well-informed and mindful about the stuff that children are bought for. The society has a role to advocate for young kids, and it should ensure that toy manufacturers take note of safety regulations and standards in the production of toys. Mattel is well known as the world’ largest toy producer having produced many favorite toys that children play with. However, from 2007, Mattel has been a casualty of sequences of safety recalls. One of their biggest recall to have been witnessed is at a time when most of their products were found with powerful magnets and lead paints that children were swallowing when handled by children. Consequently, it is true to note that Mattel’s actions were not socially and ethically responsible since it never ensured that its subcontractors met the manufacturing requirements, disregarding a significant oversight in the design of the toys even though it has made better attempts to prevent the subsequent recall.
Explain if Mattel Acted in a Socially Responsible and Ethical Manner concerning the Safety of its Toys
Parents and retailers are regarded as the most critical stakeholder of Mattel Toy Company. Parents should have the capability of putting their trust in the manufacturers with their young kids. Likewise, retailers ought to have the ability to put their faith in the toy manufacturers in that they can have a complete assurance in their product that they sell. There is no company that would wish to undergo recalls because it leads to adverse effects on the reputation of the business, some of which some firms cannot overcome. Recalls can makes company to run out of business because of lack of sales and a decrease in revenue. Since 2007, Mattel has undergone fourteen recalls, the very last taking place on October 25th, 2007 after it was realized that it is using lead-based paints in its toys (Sethi et al., 2011).
In 2007, more than seventy-five percent of the toys being sold globally were beings produced in China. Additionally, almost seventy percent of the Mattel toys were being manufactured in China. At this time, nearly 50% of Mattel’s products were being produced in plants possessed by the company (Johnson, 2001). When kids ingest the lead paints from the toys, they could end up getting brain damages. On 14th August, the company issued another recall since it was established that the toys had taints of lead paint. More than nineteen million toys were covered globally in the recall. The worries over the magnets and lead-paints in the toys produced in China made the company have elevated recalls. In Canada, one million toys manufactured by mattes were recalled. Matte again went through the third recall on 4th September which covered more than eight hundred thousand units of Barbie accessory toys that were produced in China (Freedman, Kearney, and Lederman, 2012). Similar to the other cases, the toys were found to be having high amounts of lead paints. The latest recall that Mattel had due to its toys produced in China was also because of the lead paints in its toys. However, there included other recalls that were not directly linked with the lead paints.
With the help of a more in-depth examination of the recalls illustrated above, it is evident that nearly nineteen million of Mattel’s toys were recalled in one month and one million of the toys were recalled because of the lead paint, production issue. Likewise, nearly seventeen million toys recalled globally were because of small magnets dropping from the toys. If it happened that a child swallowed the magnets, he could potentially develop intestinal infections, blockages, or perforations which would be severe. It is well known that Mattel design engineers chose to make the toys look attractive. This manifests that the problem was not with the contractor, subcontractor, or a manufacturing issue but generally brought about by Mattel’s internal design engineering division. Thus, one can establish that Mattel put a lot of stress on talking to the media about the lead paint and not solving the internal design issue. Such a decision was neither socially nor ethically accountable to do.
Describe What Mattel Should or Could Have Done Differently
Mattel underwent many recalls, but it could do things differently to avoid the recurrent recalls mainly due to the relentless damages they brought to the company’s bottom line and reputation. Despite its ways of operation and views, Mattel was seen to be having ineffectual and incomplete test protocols since they never noticed the falling of magnets from their manufactured toys. Mattel could have made attempts to take independent testing that would bring benefits because it would give the company assurance that they produce products that are secure. In their test procedures, Mattel should have included products hazards review that could assist in discovering probable dangers brought by the products and cases delivered by the hazards. This could help Mattel in recognizing underlying issues related to the magnets and initiate adjustments before production.
Mattel could also have made attempts to ensure that their supplier gave them specific materials needed for their products and proceeded to carry out assessments at the premises of their suppliers. Rather than getting a person to carry out random and unannounced inspections, the company could send a person to their supplier’s facilities at all times to examine the actions of the suppliers. Since it is the largest worldwide producer of toys, Mattel should have ensured that it created revenue that would use in the facilities of its supplier to ensure that it received services that it paid for. Mattel could also gain profits from formal agreements that possess legal reviews incorporating specific language setting for them to successfully bring forward what they expected from their suppliers and the impacts of not meeting with the requirements. Mattel would benefit from this since it would allow the on-site representatives of the company to ascertain the goods that were not in line with their demands and expectations since there would be cases when products never fulfilled the specified requirements.
Mattel preferred carrying out its production activities in China. Since it has a lot of operations and offices, the company experienced complexities while supervising the everyday activities. Following Mattel’s shifting of its operations to overseas, the company ultimately fell short of the necessary workforce to ensure that the achievement of aspired quality was met. For that reason, Mattel should have guaranteed that it put in place skilled people who would help in providing accountability to its manufactured products. These professional employees could be very significant in the close supervision of the supply chain, especially after ascertaining China’s history.
Describe Who or What Was Responsible For the Fact That Children Were Exposed To Potentially Dangerous Toys
The whole blame is to be taken by Mattel because it never made attempts to initiate effective testing systems and inspection that could assist in consistently implement compliance. Western corporations found in China were operating in lawless surroundings. The present regulation procedures were also less active with fewer regards to the law. Consequently, western companies that ran in China had to ensure that they carry out a significant legwork and become watchful regarding the choice of suppliers. The problems related to manufacturing came up due to the lack of money and time. The manufacturers chose not producing their products according to the least conventional standards of Mattel because they wanted to save money and also gratify the production deadlines. The exterior vendors and their sub-contractors located in China also withheld their services to keep on time and money. The lead paints were (DeFreece, 2002) five percent cheaper and also said to be visually rich in color. Many of the toys were also recalled because it was noted the falling of the magnets from the toys were due to the design of the products rather than their manufacturing properties. Ultimately, Mattel replaced the toys’ model so that children could be safer.
Mattel initiated the code of conduct in 2007 known as ‘Global Manufacturing Principles.’ Furthermore, Mattel made it a requirement that all of its retailers buy paints from licensed suppliers. The company also took initiatives to examine the colors they were to apply to ensure that strict compliance was adhered to on the established standards. Mattel alleged that it had conducted an assessment on their retailers and licensed suppliers to make sure that they strictly complied. During that time, many toy companies were getting their merchandise from China for at least twenty years.
Accordingly, this manifested that Mattel was conscious regarding the exact atmosphere to expect in China. Even though Mattel had initiated arrangements to sustain the viewpoints of their policy of conduct, regulations, rules, and requirements, they lacked a steady advocate to campaign for the achievement of compliance to the plan which ensured that there were safe products. Mattel, therefore, showed how it was supercilious to its own rules and regulations. This was because it failed to show an accurate and complete commitment to initiating obedience thus showing its negligence. It also led to companies, the industry, and young children to get exposed to unsafe products.
During the recalls, Mattel became successful in creating interest on the Chinese production problems as the main source, although the main issue was with its manufacturing design. As years bypassed, when stern safety testing methods by private labs were obligated, Mattel thrived in staying away from outside testing. In 2009, toys makers and clothing manufacturers were mandated to present some samples to the private labs for safety tests (Becker, Edwards, Massey, 2010). However, Mattel, the largest toymaker in the world was not directed to follow the same procedures. It was in the recent when Mattel was allowed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission to utilize its private labs for tests.
Laboratory test became compulsory with the help of a law initiated by the Congress in 2008 because of the toys tainted with lead. The law initiated strict restrictions for chemicals known as phthalates, lead, and lead paint. It obligated for manufacturing companies to conduct third-party testing to make sure that manufacturers produced products that were proficiently designed for young children. Satirically, although Mattel was the leading cause of its issues, it received superb handling from the government. This preordained that Mattel possessed a viable benefit since minor organizations were obligated to pay for their tests in the private laboratories. Since it received immense support from the government, many people presumed that all the products had gone through stringent safety tests. Mattel had never carried out any rigorous experiments as imagined by people since the recalls were directly associated with its design, an issue that was easily identifiable through the tests. This also shows how Mattel was never socially or ethically responsible, with no accountability of its procedures.
Explain the Best Way to Ensure the Safety of Children’s Toys
The society can play a big part in making sure that children’s toys are safe by educating and making themselves conscious regarding the purchases made for children. The society should stand up and become children’s activists and initiate commands that would ensure that toy producers comply with safety regulations and standards. The Beijing government came up with a cabinet-level committee to make changes to the quality and safety of products from China. The Chinese government could also deny export licenses to companies that made products using lead-based paints. Also, it could increase inspection activities and also carry out recurrent consultations with American officials.
The US government could ban the use of lead-based paints on toys imported into the country and increase the intensity of inspection activities. Meeting regularly with safety officials could also help. The United States could also hold production companies accountable for manufacturing incompetent products. Consumer advocates would be useful in increasing worries over the safety of the products (Chrsitensen and Raynor, 2013). They could also assist in the creation of safety certification programs and full revelation of inspections. The toy industry always wants to produce toys that are safe and also improve their profits. As a result, they should come up with standard protocols to verify and test that they make safe toys. The toy industry also ought to create criteria which will help in confirming the qualification of laboratories. Children’s product retailers should also improve the production code and also develop a recalling system which will effectively alert parents. They should also make sure that strict standards and regulations are adhered to. Standard-setting organizations should ensure that the government and the industry work together to reduce loopholes that show deficits. These organizations also possess a shared motivation to increase product safety.
Describe What You Think is the Best Way for the Society to Protect Children from Harmful Toys
Parents should research recall lists before purchasing toys for their kids. Parents should also be aware of the toys their children use where they go to play. This consists of being conscious of the toys their friends have. Stakeholders should raise attentiveness regarding safety measures for toys mostly from China. The US can also raise consumer protection and assurance through the maintenance of the security of children.
Conclusion
Mattel was not socially or ethically responsible since it never ensured that it subcontractors met the requirements of production, ignoring disregarding a significant oversight in the design of the toys even though it has made better attempts to prevent the subsequent recall. Mattel could avoid the recalls with the help of programs to ensure that dealers met the requirements of production. Nonetheless, no safety regulations and standards were adopted. Mattel avoided taking responsibility for the toys which had lead and magnets. However, with the help of various strategies and stern safety guidelines by the US and Chinese authorities, Mattel could be very accountable. Parents and governments have a role in becoming vigilant to safeguard their kids regarding toy safety.
References
Becker, M., Edwards, S., " Massey, R. I. (2010). Toxic chemicals in toys and children’s products: limitations of current responses and recommendations for government and industry.
Christensen, C., " Raynor, M. (2013). The innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Harvard Business Review Press.
DeFreece, S. N. (2002). The evaluation of protective coatings and their effect on salt formation on brick substrate.
Freedman, S., Kearney, M., " Lederman, M. (2012). Product recalls, imperfect information, and spillover effects: Lessons from the consumer response to the 2007 toy recalls. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(2), 499-516.
Johnson, M. E. (2001). Learning from toys: Lessons in managing supply chain risk from the toy industry. California Management Review, 43(3), 106-124.
Sethi, S. P., Veral, E. A., Shapiro, H. J., " Emelianova, O. (2011). Mattel, Inc.: global manufacturing principles (GMP)–a life-cycle analysis of a company-based code of conduct in the toy industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 483-517.
