Mattel and Toy Safety, Article Review Example

According to Porter & Kramer, “CSR can be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed—it can be a source of opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage” (2006). It was Mattel’s corporate social responsibility to address the safety concerns surrounding its product, so they took immediate action to address the safety standards that were not met by the subcontracted paint suppliers. The implementation of the 3-point safety check system to enforce compliance with all standards applicable to lead paint was effective, but it would be advantageous for the company to engage in more preventative measures to ensure the safety of its products prior to the need for developing these quality improvement initiatives.

The lack of regulatory oversight contributed to the negligence of the paint company. However, it is important for Mattel to be aware if its partner, Early Light, is engaging in ethical business contracts. It is well-known that businesses in China and some other countries are not held to the same safety requirements as businesses in the United States. Therefore, Early Light is responsible for failing to investigate its vendors and Mattel is responsible for its lack of inquiry.

The Consumer Protection Safety Commission (CPSC) is typically responsible for detecting safety issues. However, the safety of this product was overlooked in this situation. At the local level, it is necessary to implement a quality improvement plan that takes local and foreign regulations into consideration. Therefore, it is important for Mattel to set up its own safety standards that are aligned with state and federal regulations. It should require that these standards are met by the companies it agrees to do business with. According to Mattel’s website, “Mattel applies internal operating procedures designed to meet or exceed compliance with regulations and laws enforced by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and their regulatory counterparts around the world” (Mattel, n.d.). This demonstrates that the company is now only willing to do business with parties that are willing to uphold the CPSC’s safety standards.

It is important for the federal government to apply more stringent regulations with regards to the safety of products that are provided to children. Currently, the media indicates that many products contain harmful plastics and other components that are causing to early incidence of cancer and other health phenomena (Sherman, 1998). It is therefore important to put forth preventative measures to protect the health of children. While it is Mattel’s primary responsibility for enforcing these requirements in its own factories, its business partners should be required to comply to CPSC standards as well.

References

Mattel. (n.d.). Corporate Social Responsibility & Quality. Retrieved from http://corporate.mattel.com/about-us/corporate-responsibility.aspx

Porter ME, Kramer MR. (2006). Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2006/12/strategy-and-society-the-link-between-competitive-advantage-and-corporate-social-responsibility

Sherman H. (1998). Plastic in Toys Linked to Cancer Agent. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1998/nov/14/news/mn-42646