Mattel's China experience - Case Study Example

For toys produced at company-run plants, Mattel has greater control over the materials that are used and the processes that are enacted during the production process. This is unlike contract manufacturers, who have somewhat of a free reign to do as they please. Materials are not tested before use and assembly plants are not regularly inspected with contract manufacturers. Even though Mattel hired independent investigators to check that materials and processes were up to standard, they were not able to detect any lead contamination in the paint used on toys.

From a policy/audit standpoint, Mattel could have been more thorough in its investigations. First of all, the company could have appointed in-house inspectors to check that the toys met health and safety standards before the independent investigators were brought in. Having two sets of checks allows each report to be matched up and discrepancies found. Also, for the toys produced by contract manufacturers, additional testing should have been completed to ensure that no lead was found in any products.

Instead of just checking the products at the factories in China, another check should be made on all products when entering the United States. For a company that prides itself and safety and trust, it did not seem to have robust processes to check for product quality. In his media interview, senior vice-president Jim Walter said that manufacturing partners were required to use paint from approved and certified suppliers, but obviously this was not the case. If Mattel chooses to continue with using contract manufacturers, then the materials to be used should be sourced by Mattel and sent directly to the manufacturing partner.

Mattel has very little control over the production processes used to make toys in those factories, but what it can do is conduct a thorough check of every toy that is produced by that method. 2. Assess Mattel’s performance during the toy recall process. How did the firm do with addressing the concerns of various stakeholders? I feel that Mattel performed admirably in an almost impossible situation. The company was caught by surprise by the scandal and was forced to take retrospective action.

Jim Walter gave a media interview that suggested at potential quality problems, but the company did put out a press release owning up to the problem. The company did not hide from this situation and chose to conduct a thorough investigation. This led to more discoveries of unsafe products, so it was a good thing that the company was quick to act. Although the was alarm from Americans, Robert Eckert did testify to the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Eckert was apologetic in his tone, but he did stress that this was the first quality issue stemming from China in more than 20 years of production there. Perhaps the one stakeholder that Mattel did not adequately address was the stock market, as the company's share price dropped massively as a result. Consumers did threaten to boycott the company's products initially, but the fact that the company was so quick to recall products allayed those concerns. 3. Going forward, how can Mattel recover from parental fears of unsafe toys produced by Mattel?

What can the firm do to recover a positive reputation? First of all, it is going to take some time to recover from the