Mattel and Toy Safty Essay

In 2007, the Mattel misrepresent for company rec in alto realizehered around 20 million of its butterfly growths do to contamination of lead in the blusher and pencil eraser issues dealing with part of its products (magnets) that was manufactured in China. The Mattel Company is considered the global leader in scam manufacturing with everywhere 30,000 people employed in over 40 countries and operates in much than 150 countries. The Mattel Company reflexions the dilemma a lot of companies face when using overseas manufacturing. If not closely monitored, they bum and go away fill erupt corners which could put the company at risk. Who is responsible for the sentry duty of chel atomic number 18ns tinker and who should be held accountable? An Analysis of the Mattel case study should reveal who is and who isnt.1. Do you believe that Mattel acted in a friendlyly responsible and ethical carriage with regards to the safety of its monkeys? Why or why not? What should or co uld Mattel adopt done differently? The study case of the Mattel Toy Companys hornswoggle recall is a difficult one to call. The company went over and beyond to make certain(p) that its products where safe for the unexclusive. The case study states that in 1997, the Mattel Company developed a code of conduct which include a wide range of ethical issue such as child safety laws, safety and health dominions. Mattel went as for to hire Professor S. Prakash Sethi, who is the ear of a non-profit organization by the name of the International Center for unified Accountability which conducted audits on Mattel facilities.Mattel was overly recognized by Forbes Magazine as one of the most trustworthy U.S. companies and was too recognized by oscilloscope Magazine as one of the best corporate citizens out of 100, so they had built a reputation for cosmos a solid socially responsible and ethical company. Ethics gutter be defined as moral principles that guides the way a person or a bu siness line be poses. Social responsibility is an ethical theory, that a personor a business has an obligation to benefit society as a whole. basically the products or actions of a person or a business should be a benefit to society and The Mattel Company took pride in being just that. plain though Mattel had to recall a lot of its products, I do believe they acted socially responsible and ethically. Mattel sorted its products in their possess testing facilities and in other special test labs to ensure the safety and quality of its products, and had specifically targeted lead based blusher. Once Mattel found out that much or less of its products contained harmful lead based create and the magnets in more or less of its products could be a safety concern, the company had an immediate recall of the products contaminated.Mattel spend several outlets such as the Consumer merchandise sanctuary centering, regulating agencies from all over the world and impudentlyspapers to a ddress the issue of the lead based paint in its products and the magnet line. Mattel also made it possible for consumers of their products to arouse approaching to outlets in which they flowerpot return the contaminated products for a refund or a safer replacement product. Mattel did do a lot to ensure the safety and quality of their products, but, they could have taken even further steps to deflect this situation. For one, Mattel should has done research on the on the Chinese firms outside contractors. heretofore though some of these contractors had been audited, they replaced the approved paint for the lead based paint. So Mattel should have kept a closer eye on these subcontractors in order to maintain their good image with society.Mattel arseholenot be solo at fought for this recall the Mattel Company was also a victim in this situation. 2. Who or what do you believe was responsible for the fact that children where exposed to potentially serious chat ups? Why do you thin k so? This is a hard promontory because there ar several entities that can be blamed for this recall. reckon one is those that atomic number 18 responsible for consumer product safety. The Consumer Product gum elastic Commission (CPSC) is an independent national regulating agency who assumes the responsibility of fostering the public from dangerous products. This agency was created in 1972 with the Consumer Product Safety Act. This Act go bys the CPSC the potency to develop standards and bans on products. It is the chew over of this regulating agency to make sure that products are safe for public use, but it seems the dropped the ball on the Mattel dally recall. The case study states that the CPSC was severely underfunded and understaffed.The case study also statesthat in 2007 the CPSC only had about 400 employees in which only 15 of them were investigators with the job of investigating products that come through the ports. Needless to say with the amount of product that come through the ports and the number of ports used in the U.S. to import and exportation product is too much for only 15 people to handle, also the CPSC only had 100 employees monitoring products on store shelves and only had a budget of 62 million. Another player that has responsibility in exposing children to potentially harmful products ( gyps) is the Chinese governing. The enforcement of lead standards in China was not enforced, so the companies did as they call fored when it came to lead based paint.The magnet situation of more of a product design mal survive, according to the case study, so that can be easily taken care of, however, the lead base paint issue is one of enforcement. If the Chinese government had adequate enforcement of lead paint edicts, which is better than that of the U.S. at one arcdegree, this would have never been a problem for the Mattel toy company. The most responsible for this recall is the Mattel Company. Regardless of regulation inspectors and a udits, they owe it to the stakeholders of the company to ensure that the products that they are manufacturing are safe. That is what social responsibility and ethics are based upon. 3. What is the best way to ensure the safety of childrens toys? There is no way to fully ensure the safety of childrens toys, but the best way is to enforce federal legislation on toy manufactures. This is a challenge because the majority toys in this country are manufactured in other countries such as China and Asia. federal official regulation can ensure that there are uniform standards for toy manufacturing.As of June 12, 2012, all manufactures and importers of childrens toy mustiness comply with federal regulation. These toys must be tested for compliance of regulation and the testing must be done by the CPSC. It is also in the best enkindle of other countries to enforce regulation on toy manufactures. Since toys are a big export for other countries such as China and Asia, they would want to be in good standing with the U.S. by postureting some standards on toy manufacturing. Consumers instigates groups need to stay involved in toy safety issues and provide input that can help set guidelines for federal legislation. The consumer advocates can influence regulation and sustainment the public cognizant on issues of child toy safety. In 2008, consumer groups such as the ConsumersUnion, Consumer partnership of America, and Kids in Danger attended House and Senate conferences to push back for a well-funded Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).As a response to the demand of the consumer advocate groups, Congress acted by banning lead based products in childrens toys. This act of the consumer advocate groups is a perfect example of the interactive social system between corporations and society, the fact that they are so interdependent on one other that if action is taken by one it will affect the other (Lawrence & Webber, 2011, p.21). These stakeholders can have a profou nd progeny on regulation of a company. The toy exertion can also play a large role to ensure the safety of childrens toys. They can listen to input form stakeholders on issues that could make their products safer. They also can follow the requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Commission closely or even go a step beyond the CPSC regulations to ensure that their toys are safe for kids. The toy effort could also be shown as a leader in toy safety by collaborating with foreign manufactures to push their toy safety regulation to coincide with that of the U.S. standard.They could hold international regulation meetings and have input on the regulation of toy safety that can have influence on policy. These kinds of actions from the toy industry could give them a good standing with stakeholders and regulators both if they are viewed as being actively involved in the safety of the childrens toys that they are do. After all these are their customers and in business you are trying to acquire more customers not lose them, so these type of actions by the toy industry would only benefit them and the customers that helps make them the businesss that they are today. Since the increase of imported toys, the rate of injury to kids playing with toys has increased. Accountability of the toy industry is a must to bring toy safety to a minimum. integrated negligence of the sub-contractors of toy manufactures need to be recognized and investigated thoroughly to check toy safety. An bind be the American Association for umpire (Playing with Safety Dangerous toys and the Role of Americas civilian Justice System) states that A Public Citizens analytic thinking of consumer recalls found that companies waited an average of 993 years to inform the CPSC of defects, and the agency (CPSC) waited another 209 days before informing the public (American Association for Justice) of the dangerous toys. This is a secondary more than 3 years before the public isinformed of a toy heal th hazard by the toy industry and CPSC. The CPSC and the toy industry should be held responsible and held accountable for those that are put in danger by these toys. If both the CPSC and the toy industry are held accountable for the date laps of getting the information to the public it would improve toy safety. 4. What do you think is to best way for society to protect children from harmful toys? Specifically, what are the appropriate roles various stakeholders in this process?The best way to protect children from harmful toys has to be a collective effort between stakeholders, the toy industry, and government regulators. This collective effort can be beneficial to all. First, the federal government must fund the CPSC properly in order for it to function at a level in which it can handle the protrude of toys coming through our ports. I can see how the CPSC was overwhelmed with the task of making sure all toy products are safe before and by and by they hit the shelves. The CPSC wa s too understaffed and underfunded to be affective. At the time of the recalls, the CPSCs tycoon was limited to ensure the safety of childrens toys. According to an article written by Jo Hartely of the National parvenues (Protecting Our Children from Toxic Toys), The CPSC cannot legally test childrens products before sale and do not have the notes or capacity to do so if desired (Hartley, 2008).This at the time really made it hard to ensure toy safety. Also, according to the article, another way to ensure toy safety is to revise the U.S chemical regulatory system. The article states that around 80,000 chemicals are cleared for use in familiar products and 2,500 are introduced every year. Most of these chemical have not been tested for potential health impacts on children or fetuses (Hartley, 2008). This is another flaw in the regulatory system that needs to be addressed to ensure toy safety and it will take a collaborative effort to make this happen. The appropriate role for the non-market stakeholder in this toy safety issue is to use the non-market stakeholders power to use resources to influence regulatory policy on toy safety. Stakeholder power is founded in the power that they have to vote for those that protrude regulations that they want to see enacted on toy safety.The can also lend oneself economic power in order to get there point across to the toy industry on toy safety. They also have the power to use civil suits against negligent toy manufactures that are change harmful toys. Consumer advocate groups are also categorized asnon-market stakeholders. These groups can pull resources and get the word out about the negligence of a toy manufacture which could also persuade government entities to act. Groups such as the Consumer Federation of America, kids in danger and the Consumer Union have already influenced stricter regulation of the toy industry with success. The categorization of the federal government as a non-market stakeholder is still up in the air for most, but, the impact and role that the government has in the issue of toy safety is huge.The government can and has the power to regulate the toy industry to ensure toy safety. Regulating toy safety is not an easy task for the government and will not ensure that all toys will be safe, but, they can minimize the problem. oneness way they government can minimize harmful toys that may get in the possession of children is by funding the CPSC properly so that they can enforce the regulatory laws on toys safety. Between 2008 and 2011 the federal government passed regulations that give the CPSC more power to hold the toy industry accountable for toy safety. In 2008, the Consumer product Safety Act was amended in 2011 which gave the CPSC new found power to enforce regulation laws on the toy industry which included civil and criminal penalties for those that broke the laws of toy safety. It also included third party testing of toy products so that testing of the products was not left solely to the toy industry which could be manipulated as so the case of Mattel toys.The federal government also passed the Child Protection Safety Act, which protects children from choking hazards. This legislation requires warning labels on products that may present a choking hazard for kids and also mandates that manufactures, importers, distributors, and retailers to report certain choking incidents. Even though the Mattel toy company and CPSC regulatory agency made adjustments indispensable to minimize childrens toy hazards. It was their duty and obligation toy agree that the products that they sold were safe for children to play with in the beginning. All though Mattel had an large(p) ethical and social responsible reputation, the ball was dropped on this issue in 2007. One reason was the expansion of manufacturing and production of their products to foreign countries that they could no keep a close eye on. All in all it is up to us all to ensure the safety of our children when purchasing toys for our kids to play with. We cannot solely leave it up to regulatorysystems and toy manufacture we also have to play our role in this issue.ReferenceAmerican Association for Justice (2010). Playing with Safety Dangerous Toys and the Role of Americas Civil System. http//www.justice.org/cps/rde/xbcr/justice/PlayingWithSafety.pdf Lawrence, A. T., & Weber, J. (2011). Business and Society Stakeholder, ethics, public policy (13 Ed). New York. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. Hartley, J. (2008). Natural News, Protecting Our Children from Toxic Toys. http//www.naturalnews.com/022991_toys_children_chemicals.html U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. https//www.cpsc.gov/en/Regulations-LawsStandards/Statutes/