Analyzing the Duty Ethics

¶ … duty-based or deontological ethics will be defined and applied to Mattel Inc.'s case. Duty-Based Ethics Duty-based or deontological ethics deals with what individuals do, rather than the outcomes of their doings. Its key tenets are: Do what is ethically right. Do it since it's ethically right. Refrain from doing wrong things. Refrain from doing them since they're wrong.

Under deontological ethics, one cannot simply validate one's actions by proving that its end result was good; thus, this approach is occasionally termed as "non-Consequentialist." "Deontological" is derived from deon (the Greek term for "duty"). This ethical approach is commonly referred to as 'the principle of the thing', by society (BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Duty-based ethics). It teaches us that specific actions are wrong or right due to the "types" of actions they are.

Further, individuals are duty-bound to act in accordance to this knowledge, irrespective of whether the outcomes are bad or good. An individual who is a follower of deontological ethics must do what is right, even if his/her actions do less good (or more harm) as compared to doing what is wrong: In other words, individuals are duty-bound to act right, even when the end result will probably be negative (BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Duty-based ethics).

A deontologist seems to be doing things backwards, first deciding which action is 'right' and then proceeding from there. (The actual fact is that, this is what they actually do, and not the actual basis of their thoughts.) Deontological ethics focuses on every person's individual value and addresses goals and purposes. Thus, an individual does the good thing only if he/she does what is ethically correct.

Mattel Case In the course of the past two decades or more, multinational companies have braved accusations of unethical and unjust business practices and market power abuse, particularly with regard to management of their supply chains and operations in foreign countries. These allegations include, but are not limited to, personnel exploitation, in the form of paying unduly low wages, unsafe work atmosphere, and too many work hours; contamination and pollution of ground water, land, and air; and, weakening the natural government's ability to safeguard their citizens' welfare.

Multinational companies have reacted to such allegations by developing voluntary conduct codes that require all organizational members to commit to certain standards in order to tackle these problems (Sethi, et.al, 2010). The codes are formulated at company as well as industrial levels. Unfortunately, they have not been successful in garnering sufficient public trust and generating sufficient credibility, since one cannot independently verify their claims of compliance. Furthermore, the codes are not fully disclosed to the public, and also lack transparency.

This paper will examine a case dealing with Mattel Incorporated's voluntary conduct code. Mattel is the biggest toy company in the world. The code, named "Global Manufacturing Principles" (GMP), handles broad criticisms against voluntary conduct codes through (a) creation of comprehensive compliance standards, (b) Disclosing uncensored and complete audit reports and organizational remedial action to the public, and (c) Independent external supervision of the organization's adherence to its conduct code.

Code adherence success and greater levels of transparency when it comes to disclosing information to the public accorded field managers a feeling of professional gratification, and their achievements became publicly recognized. However, an equally steep drop was witnessed in GMP adherence (Sethi, et.al, 2010). After realization of all conveniently achievable targets at Mattel-operated plants, a novel series of challenges was posed when attempting to address vendor plants' adherence, which required management commitment and overstretched company resources.

It would appear that ethics- and value- oriented considerations, namely, doing what is right and for proper reasons, no longer remained the driver for Mattel Inc. The organization perceived no economic benefits by adopting a proactive stance, while rivals appeared not to suffer any negative consequences for failing to follow suit. The ultimate contributor to Mattel's code desertion was a series of broadly publicized product recalls that drew the attention of its management team.

In 2006-07, over a nineteen-month period, the toy-making giant recalled roughly fourteen million of its manufactured toys! Mattel faced regulatory actions and several lawsuits. Its reputation also suffered a serious blow. Two chief problems surfaced in Mattel toys: the presence tiny detachable (and "swallowable") magnets in certain toys and excessive lead in several toys' surface paints. An analysis of facts revealed the involvement of two separate ethical contexts, pertaining to -- 1) production practices of the company's subcontractors and contractors in China; and 2) product design (Gilbert and Wisner, 2010).

Mattel's and its employees' ethical responsibilities with regard to the above two contexts were rather different, and reflect the problems encountered by multinational corporations in global supply chain management. For instance, owing to its sustained ethical structure and reputation, the recall of almost a million Mattel-manufactured toys in August 2007 came as a great shock. The toys, contaminated with exorbitant proportions of lead (present in surface paints), were harmful to children. Manufacturer 'Lee Der Industrial', a China-based Mattel partner for more than fifteen years, was the source of those toys.

The parent company's separate safety inspections of Chinese manufacturers were not effective in preventing the recall. Retailers in Europe first detected this issue in July 2007 (Mattel: Playing with Ethics -- Doing Well by Doing Good). Mattel halted operations and investigated the matter upon being informed of it. Manufacturers in China continue using lead-containing paints, owing to their easy availability, cheap cost, and convenient-to-handle property.

Lee Der possessed the equipment required to test lead-levels in paint, but apparently, managers either purposely ignored the equipment's readings, or were confident of their fake quality check certificates. Unfortunately, matters continued worsening with the company's China-based suppliers. Another supplier's merchandise was found to contain exorbitant levels of lead, leading to more recalls.

The total number of toys Mattel was forced to recall amounted to nineteen million! A number of recalls were actually because of design flaws, including the presence of dangerous magnets posing a grave choking hazard, and overseas suppliers were, in no way, at fault. This time around, it was the parent company's fault. Duty-based ethics has a major application here. A second issue was with its audit process. Mattel manufacturing plants' audit process frequently falls short.

Mattel's own Global Citizenship Report of 2007 divulged the fact that an independent company stockholder had proposed a resolution for yearly reporting on Mattel fund allocation towards, and efforts at, improving living and working conditions in contract and company-owned manufacturing units (Corporate Watch: Mattel & Hasbro). However, as the company publishes independent monitoring undertakings'.