Mattel and Toy Safety Essay
Mattel and Toy Safety
Do you believe that Mattel acted in a socially responsible and ethical manner in regard to the safety of its toys? What should or could Mattel have done differently, if anything? I do believe that Mattel took an initiative of social responsibility and acted in an ethical manner. The issue of lead paint was introduced to the business. The company then addressed it to their overseas production facilities and took all the steps necessary to keep lead paint off of its products. This ensures quality items that are not of any danger to the children that come in contact with it. Subcontracting non-compliant paint suppliers was a risky move for Mattel. They should have checked that the paint was non-toxic and could be used for the production of children’s toys. They were justified in correcting this issue and could have acted differently to prevent any problems. If Mattel produced their own paint under their own specifications, there would be no issues. Since the paint was manufactured in an off-site location , it was not under the supervision of Mattel who faces this ethical dilemma.
Who or what do you believe was responsible for the fact that children were exposed to potentially dangerous toys? Why do you think so? Inevitably, Mattel has to assume all responsibility for the shipment and distribution of its children’s toys that leave the facility. There was a lack of responsibility on Mattel’s behalf by incorporation toxic paint onto their toys that made it out the door into the hands of children worldwide. The Consumer Protection Safety Commission (CPSC) also failed to recognize this problem before it was too late. This government agency monitors products such as kid’s toys and their hazards and health risks. The scope of this job was overseen by Mattel and the CPSC and allowed lead-based paint to be introduced to children, posing serious health risks. I believe this may be derived from poor quality control within the firm. It’s built in quality control department overlooked this entity of the toy production line. The paint manufacturers who were subcontracted provided the paint for the children’s toys. This is pure negligence on Mattel’s behalf for not makingsure their paint was harmful or toxic. Ultimately it is Mattel’s responsibility an final say to release toys to the public, hazardous or not.
What is the best way to ensure the safety of children’s toys? I believe that there are a series of measure that can be taken to ensure the safety of children’s toys. As stated in the case, the Consumer Protection Safety Commission is a government agency that works protect consumers from industrial hazards in goods such as kid’s toys. It is their job to communicate with the manufacturers to ensure there are no health risks and hazardous materials that many affect the customer base. American safety standards are to me acknowledged and products distributed are to meet these regulations. Mattel also needs to be aware of overseas subcontracting. They were dealing with the lead-based paint that originated in China. Communication of how these materials were processed and the health risks should have been done. This would be the responsibility of government regulators that control what enters and leaves the country.
I also believe that retailers who sell these items direct from Mattel should be aware of where the product came from. Safety concerns, health hazards should all be double checked for any concern. Recalls should be taken seriously and noted by the retailers of the children’s toys if any alarming news arises, such as imported lead-based paint on the products they sell. The comprehension of where and how the children’s toys were produced would have eliminated any question as to their health risks. Importing these foreign goods into the United States shows a conflict of national policy. China’s laws may tend to be different than American laws pertaining to safety standards. Therefore, this leads to imported goods that are indeed dangerous by American policy. I believe that Federal testing and monitoring should combine with manufacturer’s quality control to ensure the safety of children’s toys.
What might explain the differences in their points of view? I believe that each stakeholder in this case takes responsibility to a certain degree and has differing points of view. Government agencies work to ensure safety in various items that are introduced to the nation. Their point of view is based on a large-scale spectrum of incoming items that are used in manufacturing. Manufacturers such as Mattel assume that their products areall compliant, simply because they arrived to their facilities and passed government inspection. This may leave them without any doubt that they are harmful. This is derived from the fact that government regulators have approved these materials for manufacturing. When the products are shipped out to retailers, they are mindful that the industry has allowed the products on the shelf, hence this snowball effect from manufacturing to retail. The diminished responsibility is inevitably held on Mattel who incorporated harmful materials in their toys. All of these branches have one common goal: ensuring the safety of the consumer that they sell to. Unfortunately the toys that were released evolved into an ethical dilemma that each branch had a separate reaction to. I believe this was due to the scope of their duties and responsibilities in the workplace.
What do you think is the best way for society to protect children from harmful toys? Specifically, what are appropriate roles for various stakeholders in this process? I believe that monitoring and becoming aware of product safety standards in the best was to keep our kids safe from harmful toys. Product safety must be advocated by society to the manufacturers in our nation. This may include boycotting products that have had a bad reputation from other nations. These nations do not follow the same rules and regulations when it comes to material safety and data. These statistics may not be communicated the manufacturers that use overseas subcontractors. It is crucial for society to work together and become mindful of the harms and health risks that could end up in the hands of children. These health risks should be communicated to the retailers. Retailers are responsible for removing the products from their shelves if any risks have been discovered in a recall. Manufacturers assume the role of promoting testing and quality control before products are released to the public. If any risks are found after materials are distributed, recall orders should be made known immediately. Government inspector need to work on targeting imported goods that are used for manufacturing in the United States. American safety standards need to be updated and verified for each shipment of good that we use in this country.