In 2007, the international toy manufacturer, Mattel, Inc. issued several recalls for millions of their products. These recalls were for safety reasons in that testing at the manufacturing sites and special test laboratories showed that millions of their toys were coated with dangerous amounts of lead in the paint. This lead based paint contains a potent neurotoxin that if ingested can cause serious harm to children. Mattel assured the public that the problem would be solved, the recalled products would be collected and replaced, and that the company would never let this type of incident happen again.
In the contents of this case there are several management and safety issues and areas for improvement. One issue is Mattel, Inc.’s responsibility to its stakeholders; to its customers, to its stockholders, to its employees, and to its suppliers. The responsibility to Mattel’s customers is that of producing and selling safe products. Along with the recall on the lead coated toys there were also toys that contained small, but powerful magnets that if swallowed could attract each other and cause serious or fatal intestinal perforation or blockage. These defects were not discovered during the testing of the products. Before this incident occurred Mattel, Inc. was recognized by Forbes magazine as one of the 100 most trustworthy U.S. companies. Too this, Mattel did everything they could to assure that they were doing everything possible to handle and correct this problem. For Mattel’s stockholders, the company had to make sure that the image and reputation was saved and redeemed as soon as possible. With such a massive and extensive recall of potentially hazardous products, that was designed to be safe for children, the stock prices and e...
... middle of paper ...
...the U.S. market to be tested to U.S. standards; 2) standardize procedures that will be used industrywide to verify that products comply with U.S. safety standards; 3) establish criteria to certify that testing laboratories are qualified to perform testing to U.S. standards using industrywide protocols; 4) require the development of testing protocols and certification criteria through the cooperation of all stakeholders and apply them consistently; 5) necessitate that Toy Industry Association work with Congress, Consumer Product Safety Commissions, and American National Standards Institute to implement the legislation, rules, and protocols to ensure industrywide adherence. Both Toys “R” Us and Mattel made testimonies on the incidents as well.
Works Cited
Lawrence, A. T., & Weber, J. (2014). Business and Society (14thth ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc
Jennings, Marianne M. Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print.
As noted by Sethi, Veral, Shapiro & Emelianova (2011), the toys’ magnets could easily become lose, and thus posed a huge threat to the safety of the children as they could easily ingest them. Additionally, the toys which were produced were usually covered with lead which does affect the health of the children. The company outsourced the products from China. In this case, Mattel was quick to portray China as the culprit and denied direct involvement in the blunders. However, the company was forced to accept the full responsibility at the end of it after widespread criticism from both China and the media (Sethi, et al.
11. Kathryn M. Bartol & David C. Martin, Management 3rd edition (Boston, Massachusetts Burr Ridge, Illinois Dubuque, Iowa Madison, Wisconsin New York, New York San Francisco, California St. Louis, Missouri 1998),
As such, because the possibility of a user of the defective GWM2 units being electrocuted is realistic, there is a strong chance that the world will become aware that this company’s engineers approved of the exportation of a product that is dangerous to the public. As previously stated, the safety of the public is of the utmost importance in the Engineering Code of Ethics, so if a company’s engineers were caught not prioritizing safety in certain countries, it would be shamed globally. Regardless of whether the countries’ individual laws governing electrical wiring codes are existent or enforceable, this would still be a devastating blow to the company’s reputation. In addition, this damage to the business’s stature would ultimately result in a major profit-loss over the long term as well. Once the world discovers that this company provided customers with a dangerous product, many people will be much less inclined to purchase any of their future products. If this happens, then any profit made in the short-term by the exportation of the defective GMW2’s would eventually be overshadowed by long-term financial losses, as a portion of the market for the product will lose faith in the company and no longer buy their items or
G. Nickels, W., M. McHugh, J., & M. McHugh, S. (2013).Understanding business. (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
As a result, business enjoys a certain “privileged position” and is widely accepted by the American public. However, there appears to be a shift as people begin to see that busin...
In the case of Kolchek suing to recover for Litisha’s injuries, she can sure under the negligence liability. Every product should be fully tested in every way possible to see if the product functions correctly and will it injure individuals. There should not have been a whole that is not covered. Like stated in our book The Legal Environment of Business, “if a manufacture fails to exercise “due care” to make a product safe, a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacture for negligence”. Kolchek could sue the manufacture. In this case which is Great Lakes spa. Porter was just a company that was selling the product. Great Lakes spa should have taken the initiative to examine their products throughly before putting it out on the make for individuals to buy. Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “A manufacture, seller, or lesser is liable for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product.”
Lawrence, A. T. & Weber, J. (2011). Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics, public policy (13th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Mattel Corporation, known as the largest toy company in the world, is a publicly traded organization with a market capitalization of over $6.5 billion. Employing approximately 36,000 people worldwide in 43 countries, their products are well-known and sold in over 150 nations (Mattel.com). With such winning odds as mentioned, it is hard to imagine that a company readily known to children and adults across the globe would become even better known for the company that produced toys made with lead-based products. This assignment will discuss whether or not Mattel acted in an ethical and socially responsible manner in their decision to recall defective toys, what they perhaps could have done differently to avoid this issue, and the best way society can continue to protect children from potentially harmful toys.
As a result of the melamine based infant formula, infants across China's provinces were being hospitalized for kidney stones (Crandall, Parnell, & Spillan, 2014). Subsequently, the World Health Organization revealed the Sanlu Group's infant formula caused more than 54,000 children to seek medical treatment and four fatalities were reported (Crandall, Parnell, & Spillan, 2014). Previously, the Sanlu Group received complaints about their product as early as March, 2008, but the company's representatives dismissed the claims as a fallacy (Crandall, Parnell, & Spillan, 2014). Furthermore, since a partner of the Sanlu Group verified the presence of melamine in early August 2008, why did the company suppress the findings to the public and the government until September 11, 2008 (Crandall, Parnell, & Spillan,
Schlesinger, L., Kiefer, C. and Brown, P 2012, Just start, 1st ed, Harvard Business Review Press,
Why is the reporting required? The intent of Congress was to encourage widespread reporting of potential product hazards. Congress sought not only to have the Commission uncover substantial product hazards, but also to identify risks of injury which the Commission could attempt to prevent through its own efforts, such as information and education programs, safety labeling, and adoption of product safety standards. Although CPSC relies on sources other than company reports to identify substantial product hazards, reporting by companies is invaluable because firms often learn of product safety problems long before the Commission does. For this reason, any company involved in the manufacture, importation, distribution or sale of consumer products should develop a system of reviewing and maintaining consumer complaints, inquiries, product liability suits and comments on the products they handle.
Although Fuller made every attempt it thought was necessary to prevent its products from causing harm, it could have provided more intervention. First, H.B. Fuller should have put more research into mustard seed oil and its effect on adhesives like the United States' chemical companies had done. Research into this solution would involve consulting with the FDA to solidify positive results. This could have very well been an easy solution to Fuller and the Latin American children. Second, Fuller should have decided to discontinue its product earlier than it did. If it did make this decision, then all sales should be eliminated, not just to retailers but to industrial vendors as well. Lastly, the company should have communicated more effectively with its parent company in the US to formulate a sound plan to addressing its ethical dilemma.
Boone, L. E., & Kurtz, D. L. (2009). Contemporary Business (13 ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Nearly three decades ago, the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal India had a devastated tragedy. The toxic chemical and methyl isocyanate gas leak from the plant killed thousands of civilians who were sleeping and injured hundreds of thousands of people in the nearby neighborhood. For those who survived from this catastrophic incident had injuries ranging from blindness to suffering burns of the skins. The cause of this accident was due to the lack of safety standards and the decision making of Management of Union Carbide in the U.S and management in India in which it played a huge role on how this incident unfold and the many lives that were affected by this horrific accident. The Union Carbide manager in India’s overlooked at safety issues that could have clued them to the problem that needed to be resolved. And if management had a high priority for the safety of their employee’s well-being instead of profit, this situation could have been avoided. After the incident, it was a matter of who was responsible and who will compensate for the injured victims.