Case #8: Mattel and Toy Safety
Case # 8 Mattel and Toy Safety
Do you believe that Mattel acted in a socially responsible and ethical manner in regard to the safety of its toys? What should or could Mattel have done differently, if anything? I do believe that Mattel took an initiative of social responsibility and acted in an ethical manner. The issue of lead paint was introduced to the business. The company then addressed it to their overseas production facilities and took all the steps necessary to keep lead paint off of its products. This ensures quality items that are not of any danger to the children that come in contact with it. Subcontracting non-compliant paint suppliers was a risky move for Mattel. They should have checked that the paint was non-toxic and could be used for the production of children’s toys. They were justified in correcting this issue and could have acted differently to prevent any problems. If Mattel produced their own paint under their own specifications, there would be no issues. Since the paint was manufactured in an off-site location , it was not under the supervision of Mattel who faces this ethical dilemma.
Who or what do you believe was responsible for the fact that children were exposed to potentially dangerous toys? Why do you think so? Inevitably, Mattel has to assume all responsibility for the shipment and distribution of its children’s toys that leave the facility. There was a lack of responsibility on Mattel’s behalf by incorporation toxic paint onto their toys that made it out the door into the hands of children worldwide. The Consumer Protection Safety Commission (CPSC) also failed to recognize this problem before it was too late. This government agency monitors products such as kid’s toys and their hazards and health risks. The scope of this job was overseen by Mattel and the CPSC and allowed lead-based paint to be introduced to children, posing serious health risks. I believe this may be...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document