Focus
Final Case Analysis Paper Focus of the Final Case Analysis Paper: The Final Case Analysis Paper should focus on real life and real time application of topics covered in this course; the uses you have seen and the uses you can envision. Read Case Eight, Mattel and Toy Safety (PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE). This case describes the 2007 Mattel toy recalls, which were in response to findings that several children’s toys were coated in lead-based paint. Write an eight- to ten-page paper (not including the title and reference pages), that addresses the following:
1. Explain if Mattel acted in a socially responsible and ethical manner with regard to the safety of its toys.
2. Describe what Mattel should or could have done differently.
3. Describe who or what was responsible for the fact that children were exposed to potentially dangerous toys.
4. Explain the best way to ensure the safety of children’s toys and consider how the following groups would respond: government regulators (in the United States and China); consumer advocates, the toy industry, children’s product retailers, and standard-setting organizations. Explain the differences in their point of view.
5. Describe what you think is the best way for society to protect children from harmful toys and discuss the appropriate roles for various stakeholders in this process.
Writing the Final Case Analysis Paper The Final Case Analysis Paper:
1. Must be eight- to ten- pages in length (excluding the title page, references page, exhibits, etc.) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
2. Must include a cover page:
a. Title of paper
b. Student’s name
c. Course name and number
d. Instructor’s name
e. Date submitted
3. Must include an introductory paragraph with a clearly stated thesis or topic.
4. Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought. That is, state your response to the content, either positive or negative, and then defend your position. If multiple options/alternatives/positions are present and are being rejected, you must also defend the reasons for rejecting an option.
5. Must conclude with a restatement of the thesis or topic and a closing paragraph that summarizes the main point or points of your paper.
6. Must use at least four scholarly sources in addition to the textbook.
7. Must include, on the final page, a reference list that is completed according to APA style
Mattel and Toy Safety
On September 12, 2007, members of Congress, their staff, reporters, prospective wit- nesses, and curious members of the public gathered in a U.S. Senate hearing room to consider the issue of toy safety. In the weeks leading up to the hearing, Mattel, Inc., one of the world’s leading toy makers, had ordered a series of recalls of children’s playthings that had been found to be coated with lead paint. Lead—a heavy metal sometimes added to paint to intensify color, speed drying, and increase durability—was a potent neuro- toxin and potentially dangerous to children who might ingest bits of paint. The toy recalls had alarmed parents and consumer activists, as well as the toy industry, retailers who marketed their products, and product safety regulators. Now, as the holiday shopping sea- son approached, everyone wanted to make sure that toys—80 percent of which were made in China—were safe. “It’s scary,” said Whitney Settle, a mother from Petroleum, West Virginia. “I have a 2-year-old boy who chews on everything. I doubt I am going to buy [Mattel toys] anymore—or it’s going to make me look twice.”1
Headquartered in El Segundo, California, Mattel, Inc., was the global leader in the design, manufacture, and marketing of toys and family products. Mattel toy lines included such best-selling brands as Barbie (the most popular fashion doll ever introduced), Hot Wheels, Matchbox, American Girl, Radica, and Tyco, as well as Fisher-Price brands, including Lit- tle People, Power Wheels, and a wide range of entertainment-inspired toys. Mattel had long enjoyed a reputation as a responsible company. Forbes magazine had recognized Mat- tel as one of the 100 most trustworthy U.S. companies, and CRO magazine had ranked the company as one of the 100 Best Corporate Citizens. Mattel employed more than 30,000 people in 43 countries and territories and sold products in more than 150 nations. In 2006, the company earned $592 million on sales of $5.6 billion.
In 2007, Mattel manufactured about 65 percent of its toys in China. When the company first began shifting production to Asia in the 1980s, it used outside contractors. Mattel soon became concerned, however, that outsourcing put the company’s intellectual property at risk, as outsiders could learn to make imitation Barbie dolls and other trademarked products. Believing it could handle manufacturing more securely by operating its own fac- tories, in the 1990s Mattel built or acquired production facilities in China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore. In 2007, nearly 50 percent of the company’s toy revenue came from core products made in these company-run plants, which included five factories in China. Mattel also contracted production to between 30 and 50 Chinese firms, many of which had relationships with other subcontractors. In 2007, pro- duction throughout the toy industry was shifting toward China, in part because the weak- ening Chinese currency made goods manufactured there increasingly cost-competitive.
In 1997, Mattel had developed a detailed code of conduct, called its Global Manu- facturing Principles. Covering both Mattel’s factories and those of its contractors and suppliers, the principles addressed a wide range of labor issues. These included wages (at least minimum wage or local industry standard, whichever was higher), child labor (workers had to be at least 16 years old or the local minimum, whichever was higher), and health and safety (compliant with the standards of the American Conference of Gov- ernment Industrial Hygienists). In a move that was at the time unprecedented, the com- pany hired S. Prakash Sethi, a professor at Baruch College in New York, to carry out independent audits to assure compliance with these standards. Mattel gave Professor Sethi a generous budget, access to all facilities and records of the company and its con- tractors, and permission to make the results of his inspections public. Since 1999, the International Center for Corporate Accountability (ICCA), the nonprofit organization headed by Professor Sethi, had conducted audits of facilities operated by Mattel and its contractors at least once every three years and more often if it found problems. Over the years, Mattel had terminated several dozen suppliers for noncompliance and made numerous changes in its own plants.2
Although its Global Manufacturing Principles focused exclusively on working conditions, Mattel also took steps to ensure product quality and safety. In China, Mattel tested products both at its own facilities and in special test labs. The company had specific standards with respect to lead in paint. Robert A. Eckert, Mattel’s CEO, described the com- pany’s safety protocols for paint:
For years, Mattel has required vendors to purchase paint from a list of certified suppliers or test the paint that they used to ensure compliance with the established standards; audited the certified paint suppliers to ensure compliance with lead level standards; periodically audited vendors to ensure that they are comply- ing with paint requirements; conducted lead level safety tests on samples drawn from the initial production run of every product; and had protocols for further recertification testing for lead on finished products.
On August 1, 2007, Mattel issued a voluntary recall of 1.5 million Chinese-made, Fisher- Price products, including the popular Big Bird, Elmo, Diego, and Dora the Explorer characters, after the company learned that they contained too much lead. The company had begun a special investigation in July after a European retailer found lead paint on a Mattel product. Two weeks later, Mattel recalled another 436,000 toys—the Sarge toy from the Cars die-cast vehicle line—again because of high levels of lead. The second recall also included 18.2 million toys, such as Barbie, Batman, Polly Pocket, and Doggie Daycare play sets, that contained small but powerful magnets that could fall out of the toys and be swallowed by young children. Once ingested, these magnets could attract each other and cause a potentially fatal intestinal perforation or blockage. Mattel’s ongo- ing investigation continued to turn up problems, and in early September the company issued a third recall of 11 different products—eight pet and furniture play sets sold under the Barbie brand and three Fisher-Price toys.
