University Supply Chain Case Study: Mattel Toy Recall Analysis

Verified

Added on  2022/12/19

|4
|744
|21
Case Study
AI Summary
This case study examines the Mattel toy recall of 2007, focusing on the primary causes, actions taken, and potential solutions for quality and product adulteration problems within the supply chain. The recall was triggered by the use of lead paint, defective product designs involving small magnets, and potential product misuse. Mattel responded with a three-point check system and a review of compliance regulations, while the Chinese government enforced product quality licensing and public declarations. The study proposes that quality issues can be better managed by involving an independent party, implementing staff training programs, and conducting routine quality inspections by governments. The case highlights the importance of robust supply chain management to ensure product safety and prevent future recalls. The assignment provides an analysis of the recall, including the root causes and the responses of Mattel and the Chinese government. The case study also suggests strategies for improving quality control and preventing product adulteration in extended supply chains.
Document Page
Supply Chain 1
Supply Chain
by
Course:
Tutor:
University:
Department:
Date:
tabler-icon-diamond-filled.svg

Paraphrase This Document

Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Document Page
Supply Chain 2
1) What were the primary causes of Mattel’s recall problem? Please name three.
Manufacturing problems
The leading cause for the Mattel’s recall crisis was the use of lead paint in toys. Lead is a
neurotoxin that is detrimental to young brains, and continuous exposure can lead to harmful
effects such as a reduction in IQ and brain impairment. Children are more vulnerable to the
harmful effects of leaded toys because they often chew toys and end up ingesting lead pigments.
In 1978, the U.S government set the minimum lead levels at 0.06%, and any level above this was
banned. Notwithstanding the ban, most of the manufacturers in China continued to use lead paint
on toys because it was much cheaper than non-lead paints (Roloff and Aßländer, 2010).
Design Problems
The Mattel toys were also recalled because of defective product designs. More specifically, the
defective design was in 2007 when they used a small and powerful magnet in the toys. The
magnets were not properly enclosed and thus posing a risk to children if more than one magnet
were swallowed. The two magnets could bind across the intestines and result in injury or death
like the one which took place in 2005. Furthermore, the small parts could break off from the toys
and chock the children (Gilbert, and Wisner, 2010).
Product Misuse
The potential for misuse of some of the toys was a cause for a recall. Most of the products of
Mattel could be harmful to children because of features such as cords which could strangle a
child or others in which a child’s head could stick and cause strangulation.
Document Page
Supply Chain 3
2) What actions were taken by Mattel and the Chinese government to address the problems
associated with product recall in 2007? Please name two actions for each stakeholder
One of the actions undertaken by Mattel was the implementation of a three-point check system in
which paint was to be obtained from certified suppliers; improving controls in the production
line and testing each production to ascertain compliance. Another action was the review of the
organization’s compliance with regulations on lead levels (Peijuan et al., 2009). The Chinese
government also admonished toy manufacturers to sign a public declaration to improve product
safety. Additionally, the country enforced a national product quality licensing system which
ensured formal inspection of toys for sale.
3) How can quality and product adulteration problems be better managed in an extended supply
chain? Please name three suggestions specific to this issue
Quality and product adulteration problems can be managed by engaging an independent party
responsible for quality check, inspection and quarantine. This strategy will also help avoid
corruption which is rampant in the manufacturing industry in China. There is also a need for a
training program for staff under the supply chain department on the accepted inspection and
quarantine standards. Governments should also conduct routine quality inspections of toy
manufacturers and revoke licenses for non-compliance or order for modernization of facilities
(Peng and Chen, 2011).
Document Page
Supply Chain 4
References
Gilbert, J. and Wisner, J., 2010. Mattel, lead paint, and magnets: Ethics and supply chain
management. Ethics & Behavior, 20(1), pp.33-46.
Peijuan, C., Ting, L.P. and Pang, A., 2009. Managing a nation's image during crisis: A study of
the Chinese government's image repair efforts in the “Made in China” controversy. Public
Relations Review, 35(3), pp.213-218.
Peng, M.W. and Chen, H., 2011. Strategic responses to domestic and foreign institutional
pressures: The case of the Chinese toy industry. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 41(2), pp.88-105.
Roloff, J. and Aßländer, M.S., 2010. Corporate autonomy and buyer–supplier relationships: The
case of unsafe Mattel toys. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(4), pp.517-534.
chevron_up_icon
1 out of 4
circle_padding
hide_on_mobile
zoom_out_icon
[object Object]