Economic The case starts by stating the economic power of Mattel.

CRO magazine had ranked the company as one the 100 best corporate citizens. Mattel employed 30,000 people in 43 countries and territories and sold products in more than 150 nations. The company earned 592 million on sales of 5.6 billion. From the Mattel perspective: The fact that Mattel has earned profits rounding the 592 million dollars shows the economic opportunities that the company possess. From the Safety perspective: this statement shows that this company has been ranked as one of the best corporate citizens. The case illustrates this to show that there hasnt been a history of mistakes by this company. Believing it could handle manufacturing more securely by operating its own factories, in the 1990s Mattel built or acquired production facilities in China, Honk Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore. From the Mattel perspective: This was a great solution in order to maximize their return to their shareholders. They effectively used their offshore factories and by 2007, 50% of their toys came from these sources. From the safety perspective: The move to an offshore location in order to reduce cost has its benefits and its problems. One of the problems is the quality control of the products. Mattel ran 50 percent of the factories in China which reduced the change of quality and safety problems. The problem with the other 50 percent was that those companies also hired other companies to do their painting and other processes along the production of the toys. Over the years Mattel had terminated several dozen suppliers for noncompliance and made numerous changes in its own plants. From the Mattel perspective: Terminating suppliers due to the noncompliance with the regulations affects the economical output of the company. Mattel did the right thing by canceling the ties with these suppliers in order for them not to lose more money. From the safety perspective: The move to terminate the potential threats to the toy quality was a smart and ethically correct move from Mattel. By closing those suppliers, Mattel got some control back on the safety side. In its investigation, Mattel learned that some of its external vendors and their subcontractors were cutting corners to save money and time. From the Mattel perspective: The investigation showed that the company hired was cutting cost by using lead paint. The company failed to follow Mattel rigorous specification in order to cut cost and generate more profits. As a result of this move, Mattel toys coming from that factory where found with lead paint. From the safety perspective: The investigation clearly pointed out that some companies where cutting the cost by using lead paint. The later close of such companies was a good move towards the safety of Mattel clients, the children.

Socio-cultural

In 1997, Mattel had developed a detailed code of conduct, called its Global Manufacturing Principles. Covering both Mattels factories and those of its contractors and suppliers, the principles addressed a wide range of labor issues. From the Mattel perspective: The move of making a detailed code of conduct shows Mattels willing to make the right thing in the USA and overseas. Mattel also identified that such codes had to be established in order to make clear that Mattel is looking for a certain level of quality. From the safety perspective: The formulation of the code of conduct is the first step to make sure that the quality specifications are still carried out overseas. This code of conduct prevented Mattel from getting problems from the public in regards of human rights and their safety conditions. Since 1999, the International Center for Corporate Accountability (ICCA), the nonprofit organization headed by professor Sethi, had conducted audits of facilities operated by Mattel and its contractors at least once every three years and more often if it found problems. From the Mattel perspective: This was a smart move, because the company could hire specialist which are experts in detecting infringements of the corporate regulations. The problem is that these experts could not test the companies used by the other companies effectively. From the safety perspective: By hiring this company, Mattel, tried to ensure that their regulations where being followed. From a safety perspective, this was a positive move thanks to many recalls this company found on time. It provided a comprehensive list of all the recalled products on its web site and a toll-free number to respond to consumer questions regarding the safety of its products. From the Mattel perspective: The placement of the products on the web plus the toll free number represented the re-assurance that the company was doing the socially responsible thing. This action also goes with Mattels corporate governance and the social ethical responsibility. From the Safety perspective: Mattel did the correct thing from the safety perspective because it allowed its costumers to have a verification source. This source combined with the phone number that answered tailored specific customer questions, allowed the company to increase the safety of its products. Technological Believing it could handle manufacturing more securely by operating its own factories, in the 1990s Mattel built or acquired production facilities in China, Honk Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore. From the Mattel perspective: The move to offshore companies had many technological problems that had to be surpassed. One of them is the prevention of intellectual property going away from the company. Mattel did a good job to ensure that moving to China did not represent the lost of units made, or intellectual property lost. From the safety perspective: The company ensured that the factories they ran had the technology required to run with meeting their safety standards.

Over the years Mattel had terminated several dozen suppliers for noncompliance and made numerous changes in its own plants From the Mattel perspective: Mattel had to develop a way to cope with the absence of the suppliers they lost. This is a technological as well as a managerial nightmare. From the safety perspective: Stopping the suppliers that did not meet with the requirements facilitated the control of safety issues. Since 1999, the International Center for Corporate Accountability (ICCA), the nonprofit organization headed by professor Sethi, had conducted audits of facilities operated by Mattel and its contractors at least once every three years and more often if it found problems. From the Mattel perspective: Hiring this company was a good decision because this company also works close with the International Standardization Organization (ISO). This brings brand recognition to Mattel as a responsible organization. From the safety perspective: The safety perspective and Political/Legal The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPS) had responsibility for protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury and death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products, including children toys Some observers believe CPSC was underfunded and understaffed, relative to the breath of its mission From the Mattel perspective: The CSPS has the responsibility for more than 15,000 types of products including the toys that Mattel produces. This does not enable to have a full control on all the products that goes through their hands. If the CSPS was better funded and staffed, the defective products might have been identified earlier. From the Safety perspective: The underfunding of this commission compared with the breath of operations it runs its a total failure from the government. Mattel should have been warned by government officials before such products before the products got to the toy stores. The issue of Chinese imports cannot be adequately addressed by any one remedy but rather requires a multi-pronged approach to the problem. The CPSCs plan of action includes dialogue and initiatives with Chinese government From the Mattel perspective: From the company perspective, it is good that these legal negotiations are being performed at a governmental level. This assures that the Chinese government will intervene in the talks with the companies that have infringed the specifications set by Mattel. From the safety perspective: The involvement of the American government and the Chinese Government with the regulations will increase the future safety. It is imperative that the regulations are also performed by the Chinese government to ensure safety. The Toy industry association created the new mandatory program which all companies giving toys to the US should follow From the Mattel perspective: Another governmental step in the approval of toys ensures that there isnt any future recalls due to poor quality. Mattel From the Safety perspective: The toy association involvement with the regulations for all the toys sold in the USA will ensure the safety standards required. These regulations will also try to stop any parental concerns raised by the parents.

Individual Rights In 1997, Mattel had developed a detailed code of conduct, called its Global Manufacturing Principles. Covering both Mattels factories and those of its contractors and suppliers, the principles addressed a wide range of labor issues. These include wages, child labor, and health and safety. From the Mattel perspective: The detailed code of conduct created by Mattel is effective because its using corporate social responsibility to avoid individual right violations. Although Mattel had to recall many toys due to lead, they did not have any problems due to violations of individual rights. From the Safety perspective: The code of conduct effectively prevented the company from infringing any human right regulations. This increases the safety and rights of the employees working for Mattel and their suppliers.