Case Study - How Chinese Toymakers Respond to Recalls
In 2007, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission CPSC announced five different recalls of Mattel’s toy because of the below two issues: 1. 9.3 million play-sets with small magnets inside toys could be swallowed by young children and it may have potential of fatal accident. They included Polly Pocket dolls and Barbie and Tanner 2. Exceed of lead contain of the paint by US safe limit 0.06% of paint. They included 1.5 million Fisher Price infant toys and 253000 of Mattel “Sarge” die cast car. Such recalls has sharpened the concern whether industry and governments can stop and control Chinese manufacturer from using lead paint. From those cases, we should not only focus on “How Chinese Toymaker Respond to Recalls”, we should also focus on “How Manufacturer, Importer and Retailer Respond to Recalls”. II. Cases
Lee Der Toy Company Case - On August 2007, Fisher-Price, subsidiary of Mattel, announced to recall plastic toy, which were excessive lead contain in paint, were produced by Lee Der. The excessive lead paint were provided from Lee Der’s paint supplier Dongxing New Energy Limited, of which’s paint was not tested by Lee Der, and Dongxing was not in contractor paint supplier list from Mattel. One of the reasons was that the boss of Dongxing was a friend of Shu-hung Cheung, vice chairman of Lee Der. Chinese government has given the pressure to Lee Der after the recalls because Chinese government would protect the quality image of Chinese product, Lee Der wanted to have some amendments after the recalls such as producing new toys which claimed had passed quality tests with US requirement. However, all was faked. Cheung committed suicide after that. Le Qu Toy Case - Le Qu was a family owned company in Dongguan, Guangdong and produced toys for foreign companies. They had their own design team and own brand name. Different from Lee Der, Le Qu paid more attention to follow domestic...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document