Can Mattel Lead the Way to Safety?

Posted on August 16, 2007
by Maureen Keene

Mattel is recalling some 19 million additional toys, some due to lead contamination and most because of dangerous magnets. Again, experts in the industry note that Mattel sets the gold standard for safety in toy production…so what does that mean for everyone else? According to the New York Times:

“If I went down the shelves of Wal-Mart and tested everything, I’m going to find serious problems,” said Sean McGowan, managing director and the toy analyst at Wedbush Morgan Securities. “The idea that Mattel — with its high standards — has a bigger problem than everybody else is laughable. If we don’t see an increase of recalls in this industry, then it’s a case of denial.”

“If Mattel, with all of its emphasis on quality and testing, found such a widespread problem, what do you think is happening in the rest of the toy industry, in the apparel industry and even in the low-end electronics industry?” said S. Prakash Sethi, a professor at Baruch College, part of the City University of New York, who has acted as an independent monitor of working conditions in Mattel’s factories for the last 10 years. “Everyone is going to be found with lots of dirty laundry.”

Mattel at least is doing what Mega Brands failed to do — recalling toys before they kill children. But if Mattel’s standards are so rigorous, why did it take a European retailer to discover the lead contamination in the Sesame Street and Dora products? And the bigger question is, why are there suddenly so many toy recalls because of lead paint? Has there been a sudden rash of lead paint usage? Or is it more likely that lead has been in our children’s products coming from China for years, but it’s only being discovered now because companies and consumers are taking a closer look?

Mattel CEO Robert Eckert has been making the rounds of morning shows trying to repair some of the damage done to the company’s image by these recalls. And while they probably will take some steps to improve safety and increase testing, Mattel, as the world’s leading toy company, has the unique opportunity to truly lead the way to safer products and to a better model for doing business in China.

First, Mattel needs to handle all of its operations in-house. If using contractors, even those that they have trusted for decades, can still result in toys that don’t meet safety standards, then clearly the lesson is they need to oversee all manufacturing operations from start to finish until there is a sea change in the way business is conducted by Chinese companies. While substituting cheap, illegal materials remains standard practice in China, the safety of Mattel’s products, and its reputation, are at risk.

Secondly, Mattel can demonstrate its commitment to safety by working with the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Congress to change the way safety testing and recalls are handled for their industry. Rather than taking the typical adversarial role that industry takes against government regulation, they can voluntarily submit to independent third-party testing of their products, lobby in favor of a stronger CPSC, and support the Children’s Product Safety Act of 2007 introduced by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL).

While tighter safety measures will cost more upfront, what is the potential cost of not taking these steps? If every parent who has bought a brightly painted Elmo or Big Bird for their child decides to join a class action suit against Mattel for potential brain damage caused by exposure to lead – or even just to cover the doctor visits for lead testing — how much will that cost the company? The flip side of the coin is parents standing in the toy aisle passing over other brands in favor of Mattel products because they are truly the highest quality and safest toys on the market. If you were Robert Eckert, which scenario would you prefer?

Popularity: 68% [?]

Bookmark to: