Protecting Children from Hazardous Toys

Case Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
1. ......................................................................................................................................................1
Describing the Mattel act regarding children act...................................................................1
2........................................................................................................................................................3
Best way of assuring safety towards children toy's .............................................................3
3........................................................................................................................................................5
Best way for society to protect children from hazardous toy's .............................................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
Mattle company is a leading toy company in the world but in present facing the problem
of customer dis-satisfaction as the product are found hazardous by the society (Mak and Lau,
2014). So, the case study main purpose is to describe the way business and society can best
assure the safety of the children toys.
1.
Describing the Mattel act regarding children act
According to the given case study it reflects that children toys manufactured and supplied
by the Mattel company were hazardous. Toys were coated with contaminated paint which made
many children seek and the magnet present in toys which is dangerous, if swallowed it may lead
to intestinal blockage of a child (Winkler and et.al., 2016, pp.23-32). For this, following terms
described by government in the company’s act are mentioned below: -
 Corporate social responsibility: - It is the responsibility of the company to be held
responsible, if any customer is affected by their products and services. It depicts that in
case of any causality it should be acknowledge and immediate actions should be taken to
have an appropriate measure (Nelson, Carpenter and Connors, 2015, pp.53). Companies
in the situation of the when wrong products are supplied in the market, should efficiently
called back all its goods for the social welfare. The term is applicable when any activity
is done which is affecting the social or economic environment and is regulated by the
team of environment welfare units.
 Ethics: - It is the perception and conception of people about the environment that what is
right and what is wrong (Bauman, 2015, pp.191-210). It defines the protocols about
moral and immoral instinct of humans with affirmative bonding which describes our
perception towards other and how others conception should be towards us. The rules and
regulation described under ethics principles are developed for the moral instinct. For
instance, in a backward society bluffing, diddling, harassing and dejecting someone may
be consider as ethical. But in according to ethical principles helping others, protecting the
rights of society are considered as ethical (Ahmad, Pesch and Gulati, 2015, pp.1).
Business ethics defines the ethical notion for the regulation of the business activities.
1

According to the study, it depicts that Mattel company has not acted in social
responsibility and ethical manner with regards to the safety of its toys (Duarte, 2016, pp.250).
Company dangerous product were render in the market and were used by children. It was the
laziness of firm who do not consider it to be genuine to have a complete check of the product
line (Hung and et.al., 2016). The organization should increase its production cost in order to
supply quality products in the market. Enough monetary resources in production so no suppliers
and tries to cut down the cost by using duplicate ingredients. In the case Mallet company was not
able to operate its supply chain effectively and efficiently. The strategy adopted for toys design
was not relevant and the raw material used was hazardous for the health of children. Mattel's
organization principles did not ensure the quality of product and its safeguard (Duquette, 2008,
pp.1-28). Company failed to analyse harmful products and was not able to eliminate them from
the market, therefore, defective products were sold to the customers. As the consumer used the
products they were felt being cheated by the supplier and were annoyed due to such an act of
Mattel company.
Firm has not done anything different to safeguard the rights of people. To avoid such
condition company should have a complete review of its production chain as well as supply
chain in order to avoid the malpractice of resources. It should have manufacture all its product
within the factory premises to avoid the duplication of material. Broadening, its production
process to ensure quality products by keeping in mind the safety principles (Peterson and Jang,
2016, pp. 1-15). Redefining the rules and regulation of organization to ignore the false strategies
and which only acceptance and procurement of quality products. While the process of
manufacturing, Mallet should decide the standard of product and a complete recheck of product
by specialist. Development of the industry in which Mallet is conducting its business to describe
standard that must be followed by suppliers. No adequate formation of the policies to avoid the
inappropriate phase of design. Mallet company management team should have paid attention
while discussing and implementing the production cycle strategies (Giroux, 2009, pp.249). Apart
from that company should have assigned a team of experts who can check product thoroughly,
before its sale. If the product is not fulfilling the all safety measures it should be recreated.
Employing those suppliers who takes customer satisfaction as the priority and do not work for
personal gains. Hence, it was reluctance of the Mattel company who was not able to serve the
society well enough (Michael and Hayes, 2016, pp.123-128).
2