Mattel Official Delivers an Apology in China
October 22nd, 2007
Submitted By: Dena Malloy
Take a look at this Wall Street Journal article and this New York Times article.
Recently in the news, there has been a firestorm of recalls of Chinese made goods. One of the companies that was forced to make a recall was Mattel. The company has recalled approximately 18 million toys in total. About 3 million of these toys were recalled due to lead paint. Lead paint is certainly not good for the health of a child, but no harm has actually been proven to have occurred. The other toys contain small magnets that pose a hazard to children that swallow more than one of them. When the child swallows the magnets at longer intervals (20min – 1 hr), the magnets can attach to each other inside the child’s intestine and become stuck, perforating the intestine. One child died in 2005 and several have required surgery to remove the magnets. Almost all of these toys were made China, but the magnet problem is a design flaw.
Was Mattel trying to throw China under the bus? The design issue with the magnets is not new. Why recall now along with the toys containing lead paint? Did they finally have a way of making someone else seem responsible? Did they get busted and have to apologize or are they strategically apologizing just to keep on the good side of their biggest supplier? Are they now going to be sued because they have admitted to a design flaw causing harm?
I personally think that Mattel was hoping consumers would blame the magnet problem on China and I think that overall it has worked. I’m sure many of you knew that Mattel recalled a large amount of Chinese made toys, but I bet fewer numbers knew that the majority of the recall was due to a design flaw. The later apology was probably planned the whole time knowing that the recall would make headlines, but the apology would barely be noticed. The Chinese government has a right to be upset. Mattel’s profit are made by producing their toys in China.
Entry Filed under: Pre-Departure, Beijing, China, Guangzhou
4 Comments Add your own
1. Chris Carr | October 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 am
You (meaning you and your classmates) might check in with Dr. Anderson in your MBA law course on this post. He will likely have some interesting insight into an issue like this, particularly because in his other life he served as in-house counsel for some major firms, some of which had a hard time listening and following their attorney’s very wise advice re how to proceed in this type of a jungle.
2. Brandi Eng-Rohrbach | October 22nd, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Most companies that do business in China are not concerned with quality. They are only concerned with one thing and that is cost. You don’t have things made halfway around the world for any other reason. Also, I would assume most of the Chinese companies would do anything to gain the business including use or not use whatever materials they want. If there is little oversight, it is probably because the company using the supplier doesn’t care that much. If the company expresses their only concern is cost, the Chinese supplier will do whatever it can to reduce the cost. Since there is less business regulation over there this can mean a whole lot. I think that by admitting it was their mistake they are trying to preemptively act to prevent things from getting any worse. A recall is usually made for a similar nature to preempt worse things that could occur. If the opportunity cost of admitting you made a design flaw is less than the potential damage that will occur you probably will admit you made a design flaw. As soon as you recall an item, I believe you can’t be held liable for the damages that occur after that date. Of course, Mattel chose to bundle the bad news together. The worse thing is the only thing anyone will take away. This is very strategic just like when someone tells you some bad news and then some good news. You try to end on what you want others to remember. In conclusion, I feel it was all very orchestrated and intentional but that’s why you pay PR people right?
3. Ryan Moore | October 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Mattel recalls 18 million toys due to their own design error and then blames China for a recall of 2 million toys that “may or may not” have had too much led in the paint? Silly. I understand a company protecting itself from liability, but in this case it appears that Mattel made a big mistake and then pointed at China and and shouted, “He did it!” Have they reduced international business to a schoolyard argument? Grow up Mattel, just cause you make kids toys does not mean you have to act like one. Go back and and apologize. No! I don’t wanna. GO BACK AND APOLOGIZE!! Ok…I’m sorry…(not really).
I used to eat paint chips when I was a kid. I wonder if they had lead in them?
4. Frank Wallace | November 21st, 2007 at 2:45 am
Actually, I think you might be a little cynical. I disagree with your thoughts because I don’t really see the evidence behind the argument that Mattel orchestrated this huge fiasco for their benefit. It sounds too much like a conspiracy theory to me. I’m not saying that this type of thing doesn’t happen in business, because I’m sure it does and more than it should, but in this situation I don’t think it was the case. For the most part, products are recalled for a reason.
Also, lead paint definitely can be a serious problem, so it was good that Mattel recalled all of those products. According to Wikipedia, “Although lead improves paint performance, it is a dangerous substance. It is especially damaging to children under age six whose bodies are still developing. Lead causes nervous system damage, hearing loss, stunted growth, reduced IQ, and delayed development. It can cause kidney damage and affects every organ system of the body. It also is dangerous to adults, and can cause reproductive problems in adult men.” Whatever really happened between China and Mattel doesn’t matter to me as much as the fact that responsibility was taken for the faulty products, and I’m just glad that the toys will be safer.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed