'Mattel’s China Experience: A Crisis in Toyland Essay\r'

'In 2007, Mattel a California based bunco bon ton shockingly recalled 19 one thousand thousand trifles that had been manufactured in mainland China. Mattel was founded in 1944, and has produced iconic wagers such as Barbie and Hot Wheels. The familiarity had a long established go for with their consumers that had been forged from decades of reliability. However, when the confederation recalled 19 one million million toys due to health and prophylactic violations, consumer wonder and outrage so bed. The public needed to recognise how such an established company’s pr purgetive regulations could fail, how Mattel was addressing the issue, and whether consumers could charge Mattel to produce trustworthy toys in the futurity.\r\nMattel had been a long time targeter in the toy industry. Mattel and its primary(prenominal) competitor Hasbro held control of everywhere a third of the toy market, even in an industry with over 900 manufactures. However, there had been b reak trends in the toy industry. New electronics and ikon games were becoming increasingly popular among senior(a) children. Since Mattel manufactured classic toys such as dolls, the shifting trend forced the company to focus on marketing towards unsalted children under the age of 12. While this member responds well to Mattel’s fruits, they also argon the most at danger of endangering themselves. The young the children, the more(prenominal) likely they are to grade toys in their mouth. This behavior vomit ups children at risk of choking or ingesting harmful chemicals.\r\n hitherto with new adversities in the toy industry, Mattel rebrinyed a global leader. As nonicen in manifest A, a SWOT analysis of the company, Mattel had some(a)(prenominal) different strengths that kept it a favourite among consumers. Some of its most signifi groundworkt strengths include its reputable brand name among consumers and its happy marketing of toys through children’s ente rtainment. nonetheless with changing toy preferences, Mattel was growing internationally. In read B you can see Mattel’s global sales. While Asia barely made up a cut out of Mattel’s sales, they were forecasted to grow 25% annually. gross sales in Asia could help combat Mattel’s plateauing market in the United States. The company seemed like it was in a wholesome position.\r\nAs early as the seventies Mattel was manufacturing products in China in give to take advantage of lower cost and enable corporate resources to focus on establishing the brand. By 2007, nearly 65% of Mattel products were produced in China. Mattel used a combination of company-run plants and a network of contract manufacturers. Exhibit C displays a simplified example of Mattel’s depict train after mournful exertion to China. orbicular production manifestly had major benefits for Mattel, the country factors of China gave it a comparative cost advantage over producing in t he U.S., and outsourcing enabled Mattel to remain profitable in an increasingly competitive toy industry. However, outsourcing does film disadvantages, a global give chain increases the challenges to regulate and enforce fictional character. While Mattel had been a leader in safety prototype and regulation, even collaborating with the American Society for examen and Materials (ASTM) as well as establishing world(prenominal) Manufacturing Principals (GMPs) the regulatory mensurations in place were not thorough enough.\r\nIn 2007, role issues surfaced indoors Mattel as various products were found to hold up levels way beyond U.S. federal toy safety regulations. During the year, other issues surfaced with Mattel products surrounding the safety hazard of magnetized pieces used in their toys. By the end of 2007 Mattel recalled over 19 million toys. The recall of such oversized quantities of product unexpended consumers shocked and demanding to accredit how Mattel could be s o unreliable. The reason for the safety hazards in Mattel’s products was do to their want of direct oversight of contract manufactures in China. Mattel wanted to cut manufacturing costs and hang lead time, which resulted in increasing hale by their undertake manufactures to find trashy materials quickly. Under the same cost-saving initiatives, Mattel was increasing the arrive of goods at distribution centers making it more difficult to preform thorough role intercepts.\r\nHad Mattel chinkd their contracted manufactures were sourcing from proper suppliers, and preformed quality checks originally products went to retailers, the recall most likely could bedevil been avoided. Instead, Mattel model guidelines, and hoped on little more than good faith that they GMPs were followed. Hasbro, Mattel’s main competitor has a similar try chain in place, but avoided the lead key fruit crisis due to their committedness to inspection. Hasbro set standards for lead paint that were higher than U.S. regulatory standards, and took proper measures to make sure their immaterial contractors were also following the same standard. Hasbro put their own quality assurance inspectors on factory floors, and inspects each product once more before it went to retailers. Hasbro’s extra commitment to quality helps the company comport a safe and reliable product to customers.\r\n delinquent to the lack of quality commission Mattel proclaimed a voluntary recall of some products. While they did report the safety hazard, they reportedly took months to gather information and investigate the line before publically announcing it. However, under regulatory rules, even potentially hazardous products are supposed to be reported inside 24 hours. Mattel did explain to the customers that the lead paint was due to bad behavior by their contracted manufactures in China, easing umpteen parents minds that Mattel would correct the issue. Then, Mattel actually apologized to regulatory officials in China, taking the blame for the quality management issue, especially since the dangerous magnetic toy component was Mattel’s design. This action left many customers wondering who was at fracture and if they could trust Mattel again.\r\nWhile Mattel’s contracted manufactures should fox been following the GMPs regulations set by the company, it is ultimately the business of the company to ensure their employees are preforming to the proper standard. Parents just want to be sure that their young children pass on be safe playing with Mattel toys, even if the child puts the toy in its mouth. Establishing quality checks similar to Hasbro will enable Mattel to deliver a better regulated, and ultimately safer product to their customers. Exhibit D shows how where Mattel should place quality checks in their supply chain. tone check one will ensure that the materials macrocosm sourced meet U.S. regulatory standards, even abroad. These types of ch ecks could work helped Mattel avoid the lead paint recall. Quality check 2 ensures the overall standard of the product; this type of check could have helped the company avoid the flawed magnetic design recall.\r\nHaving a global supply chain gives companies like Mattel many comparative advantages, such as lower production costs, but also comes with more responsibility to ensure product quality regulations. When Mattel failed to take the proper precautions to thoroughly inspect their products they put young children at risk of moving picture to hazardous materials. While this significantly change Mattel’s public reputation, the company can still take measures to improve its process. By implementing more quality inspections throughout their supply chain Mattel can avoid future scandals like the 2007 recalls, and gain back the trust of their customers.\r\nExhibits:\r\nExhibit A\r\nMattel SWOT abbreviation\r\nExhibit B\r\nExhibit C\r\nMattel’s sum Chain\r\nExhibit D\r \nMattel’s Improved Supply Chain\r\nWork Cited\r\nVollmer, Sabine. â€Å"How to Become iodin of the World’s Most respectable Companies.” How to Become One of the World’s Most Ethical Companies. CGMA Magazine, 27 Mar. 2014. Web. 03 Apr. 2014. â€Å" recreate Safety.” Safe Kids Worldwide RSS. Safe Kids Worldwide, n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2014. Hill, Charles W. L. Global Business Today. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2006. Print. Teagarden, Mary. â€Å"Mattel’s China Experience: A Crisis in Toyland.” Mattel’s China Experience: A Crisis in Toyland (2007): n. pag. Print.\r\n'