Final Case Analysis Paper

Every company needs to consider the corporate social responsibility.
They need to be ethical in providing products and services (Brown,
2006). This should be in line with production of commodities that cannot
harm consumers. In case a company produces commodities or sells
commodities that are harmful to consumers, then the company does not
take responsibility as it is required and thus behaves unethically. In
most cases, the government and consumer protection agencies are usually
in the frontline in making companies produce or distribute commodities
that follow consumption standards this ensures that companies do not
produce or sell harmful products. In the Case of Mattel, toys were
usually produced with lead paint. Considering the toxicity of lead,
children could digest some bits of the lead paint making the toys
leading to death. Being a vast company and a renowned distributor of
most toys, Mattel acted responsibly by recalling toys that were found to
be coated with lead paint. Mattel Company did not operate its own
factories, but relied on suppliers in the distribution of toys
(Jennings, 2009). This made the supplies take the opportunity of using
excess lead coating in the production of toys. Although the Mattel
Company acted responsibly after some time, by recalling the toys found
having excess lead coating, it could have acted early enough in ensuring
that the factories that made the toys did not use excessive lead in
making of toys or could eliminate the use of lead in the making of toys.
In this assignment, it will be discussed that Mattel acted in a socially
responsible manner. Besides, the best way to ensure the safety of
children toys will be discussed. Different groups such as government
regulators, toy industry, consumer advocates, children product retailers
and standard setting organizations will be considered.
I believe Mattel acted in a socially responsible and ethical manner in
ensuring the safety of toys. In the first instance, Mattel Company did
not have factories for the production of children products the
suppliers had the factories to produce the products. Although the
suppliers did not act in a socially responsible and ethical manner in
the production of children products this is because they used excessive
lead coating in the production of toys knowingly despite the harmful
effects of lead, when digested the Mattel Company acted responsibly and
in an ethical manner because it recalled toys that had excessive use of
lead in their coating (Jennings, 2009). This was responsible and ethical
since through recalling the toys, the company was capable of protecting
consumers from the harmful products that could have otherwise led to
fatalities once children digested the lead used in the making of toys.
Any responsible company will always prevent the death of its consumers
or will ensure that consumers receive the rightful protection from
harmful products (Carroll, 2003) this is exactly what the Mattel
Company did. It protected consumers from harmful products that could
even lead to death when digested. Considering children as the chief
targets in the market of toys, it is exceedingly easy to harm the
children through producing commodities that they can easily take to
their mouths. The Mattel Company acted responsibly and in an ethical
manner since they protected the children, who could easily become
poisoned by the lead coating in the toys that they used. Although Mattel
Company acted responsibly in the last minute, the company could have
acted early enough to prevent the use of harmful children products. In
addition, the company acted responsibly and in an ethical manner
because once it discovered that the design for producing toys exposed
children to the possibility of using the magnets inappropriately, it
changed the design for toys in the new toy design, the magnets were
designed such that they were locked inside the products so that children
could not break them easily and accidentally ingest them. This was
critical in eliminating death of children due to the ingestion of the
magnets, which is a socially responsible and ethical act. Hence, the
Mattel Company acted in a socially responsible and ethical manner.
Mattel Company could have acted differently from the start. One of the
ways that the company could have considered is producing the children
play items itself. This could have eliminated the chance of selling
children play items that have lead coating, which is harmful to the
children. Besides, the company should have considered controlling the
production of children play items by giving suppliers conditions for the
production of the items this could have made the company give the
suppliers the raw materials to use in the production of toys. This could
be critical in understanding the level of lead used in the production of
toys. The company could have refused dealing with products that were
harmful to children. Besides, the company could have indicated in the
label of the play items the amount of lead used. This is crucial since
it could have acted as a caution to individuals buying play items for
kids.
I believe both the suppliers of the toys and the Mattel Company, were
responsible for the fact that kids were exposed to dangerous toys. The
suppliers used the lead paint since they perceived that the lead paint
was easy to apply and inexpensive. They did not consider the harmful
effects that they were exposing children to by using the excessive lead
coat. Besides, the suppliers did not ensure that they used the required
levels of lead in the making of toys, thus exposing children to
dangerous toys. The Mattel Company was also responsible for exposing
children to the dangerous toys since the company did not, at first, do
enough research on whether the initial design of toys, where the magnets
were exposed, could have the possibility of causing fatalities once
children ingested the magnets. Besides, the company did not consider
doing thorough investigations to know the levels of lead used in the
production of toys (Jennings, 2009). This exposed children to using the
dangerous toys. Apart from the suppliers and Mattel Company, consumer
protection agencies also exposed children to the dangerous toys. The
consumer protection agencies could have assessed the levels of lead used
by factories in the production of toys so as to ensure that the
factories comply with the required levels. However, supplies were
capable of using excessive amounts of lead without the consumer
protection agencies questioning the levels. Besides, the consumer
protection agencies were responsible for exposing kids to the dangerous
toys since they did not question the earlier design that was used in the
production of toys, which had magnets exposed. Therefore, the consumer
protection agencies were responsible for exposing kids to the dangerous
toys since they could have used their position and authority to
eliminate the dangers of the toys to kids.
From the case study, one of the best ways of ensuring the safety of
children toys would be through government regulation. In the case study,
there are two government regulators China and the United States, which
have different regulations for the levels of lead that can be used in
the production of toys. The government regulators need to minimize the
levels of lead that can be used in the production of toys this would
make companies producing toys to comply with such regulations
eliminating the possibility of toys having high levels of lead that is
potentially dangerous. Besides, in ensuring safety in the production of
toys, the government regulators can also put a law eliminating the use
of lead in the production of toys, and instead call for the use of
substitute materials. Another way of ensuring safety in children toys is
through the consumer advocates. The consumer advocates need to control
the use of lead paint by ensuring that companies produce toys using the
required lead levels that the government regulators have ascertained.
This would ensure that the toys produced are safe for children’s use.
Besides, the consumer advocates need to keep watch on the designs used
by companies in the production of toys the consumer advocates need to
ensure that the toys produced are of the right design. The consumer
advocates can ensures that they eliminate companies that do not comply
with the required design for children toys. This will enhance the safety
of the toys since companies producing toys will usually follow the
required designs that eliminate dangerous toys. Besides, the toy
industry can also ensure the safety of toys by ensuring that it puts up
some laws that the companies in the industry need to comply with in the
production of toys (Hoffman, 2003). The laws that the industry put
forward should ensure on the safety of toys produced the safety
measures may focus on the designing of the toys and materials used in
the production process. The industry should restrict companies from
entering the industry in case the companies do not comply with the
requirements of the industry in the production of toys. Also, in
ensuring safety in the production of children toys, children product
retailers can decide to reject purchasing products from wholesalers and
producers that do not ensure safety in the production of toys. By
refusing to stock their businesses with toys that do not ensure safety,
retailers can make producers comply with safety in the production of
toys. In addition, the safety in the production of toys can be ensured
through the standard setting organizations. The standard setting
organizations can ensure safety of toys produced by setting up standards
that guide the production of toys. The standard setting organizations
need to eliminate companies that do not comply with the set standards of
safety. This would ensure that all companies in the toy industry comply
with the set standards in order to continue operating in the toy
industry. The points of views, regarding safety, for the different
groups discussed above have differences since the different groups have
varied authorities. Some groups have more powers than others, which
limit their scope of action in ensuring safety.
I think the best way for society to protect kids from harmful toys is
giving authority to agencies in ensuring safety of toys. By enforcing
such agencies, the society will be capable of eliminating the issues
related with safety of toys. Besides, different stakeholders should be
given an opportunity to help in ensuring safety of toys. Therefore,
different stakeholders have different roles in ensuring safety of toys.
The stakeholders in ensuring safety of toys include parents, consumer
product safety commission (CPSC), and standard setting organizations.
These stakeholders have different roles in ensuring children toy safety.
The parents have a role in ensuring that they do not purchase toys that
do not meet regulation standards. Parents need to always ensure that the
toys that they purchase do not expose their children to unnecessary
danger (Pollard, 2010). In performing this role, the parents need to
have knowledge regarding the levels of lead used in the making of toys.
Through parents practicing this role, it will be possible to ensure toy
safety since no parent will purchase unsafe toys and toy companies would
ensure adhering to set rules of ensuring toy rules. The consumer product
safety commission has the role of enforcing and overseeing mandatory
testing of toys before they leave the manufacturing centers (Pollard,
2010). Besides, the consumer has the roles of removing unsafe toys from
shelves this ensures that all toys being sold by retailers are safe for
kids use. In addition, the consumer product safety commission has the
role of ensuring toy safety through heavily penalizing companies, which
do not follow the rule of the law in the production of toys. On the
other hand, standard setting organizations have the role of putting up
toy safety standards and ensuring that the standards are followed by the
toy companies. Besides, the standard setting organizations have the role
of penalizing toy companies that do not comply with the set standards
for ensuring toy safety. Through penalizing toy companies that do not
comply with the set standards, safety is ensured since companies ensure
that they follow the set standards in order to avoid penalties.
Conclusion
Companies need to ensure that they act in a socially responsible and
ethical manner (Brown, 2006). From the case, it is evident that the
Mattel Company acted in a socially responsible and ethical manner. This
is because the company recalled the toys that had excessive use of lead
in their production process. This was responsible because failure to
recall the toys could have led to fatalities in kids using the toys.
Besides, the company acted in a socially responsible and ethical way
because it changed the designing of the toys. Failure to change the
designing of toys could have led to fatalities oaf kids using the toys
since the magnets were fitted outside the toys making children exposed
to the danger of ingesting the magnets. The safety of toys can be
ensured through the different roles that different stakeholders perform.
For instance, standard setting organizations have the role of putting up
toy safety standards and ensuring that the standards are followed by the
toy companies. Besides, the standard setting organizations have the role
of penalizing toy companies that do not comply with the set standards
for ensuring toy safety. On the other hand, the consumer product safety
commission has the role of enforcing and overseeing mandatory testing of
toys before they leave the manufacturing centers.
References
Brown, M.E. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Supply Chain.
Vol. 6 (3).
Carroll, B.A. (2003). A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate
Performance. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 (4).
Hoffman, F.L. (2003). Safety and Health: Lead Poisoning in 1936 and
Earlier Years. Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 46 (2).
Jennings, M. (2009). Business ethics: Case studies and selected
readings. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Pollard, M.J. (2010). Toy Safety- New Laws Combined with Parent
Supervision Help maintain Safety. Vol. 14 (1).
FINAL CASE ANALYSIS PAPER PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 7
FINAL CASE ANALYSIS PAPER