Mattel Toys
Mattel Toys
Thesis: This is a rhetorical analysis of the response strategies employed by Mattel during the recall crisis. This decision would come back to haunt the toy manufacturer in the summer of 2007. Understanding how trust is built, support and recovery are a critical competency for any organization, particularly for those who take their ethical values and commitments seriously. Since an organization’s reputation is built on its trustworthiness that can take a long time and require considerable effort and investment in being successful. In May 1998, “Mattel Inc. stockholders rejected a resolution that sought to link executive pay with fair labor practices at production sites. The Nashville-based United Paperworkers International union, a Mattel shareholder, submitted the proposal urging the El Segundo-based toy maker to reward executives for enforcing company standards requiring the company and its suppliers to comply with wage laws, workplace-safety requirements and child-labor prohibitions”. http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/toy-industry-labor-relations
But, what happens when a crisis or scandal hits an organization and its reputation for trustworthiness comes under sustained threat? This question is a rhetorical analysis of the response strategies employed by Mattel during the recall crisis. In summer of 2007, that decision would come back to haunt the toy manufacturer. On August 14, 2007, headline declared that Mattel’s reputation was under fire. Also in October of 2007, it was apparently across the globe that the long time toy industry giant (Mattel) was facing a major crisis. By announcing three major sets of toy recalls between August 2 and September 4, and another minor recall on October 25. Mattel was continuously under fire from the press and its stakeholders, regarding their direct and/or indirect stake in the company and its performance. Who were demanding an adequate response from the company? On June 8, 2007, Mattel was first alerted
Thesis: This is a rhetorical analysis of the response strategies employed by Mattel during the recall crisis. This decision would come back to haunt the toy manufacturer in the summer of 2007. Understanding how trust is built, support and recovery are a critical competency for any organization, particularly for those who take their ethical values and commitments seriously. Since an organization’s reputation is built on its trustworthiness that can take a long time and require considerable effort and investment in being successful. In May 1998, “Mattel Inc. stockholders rejected a resolution that sought to link executive pay with fair labor practices at production sites. The Nashville-based United Paperworkers International union, a Mattel shareholder, submitted the proposal urging the El Segundo-based toy maker to reward executives for enforcing company standards requiring the company and its suppliers to comply with wage laws, workplace-safety requirements and child-labor prohibitions”. http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/toy-industry-labor-relations
But, what happens when a crisis or scandal hits an organization and its reputation for trustworthiness comes under sustained threat? This question is a rhetorical analysis of the response strategies employed by Mattel during the recall crisis. In summer of 2007, that decision would come back to haunt the toy manufacturer. On August 14, 2007, headline declared that Mattel’s reputation was under fire. Also in October of 2007, it was apparently across the globe that the long time toy industry giant (Mattel) was facing a major crisis. By announcing three major sets of toy recalls between August 2 and September 4, and another minor recall on October 25. Mattel was continuously under fire from the press and its stakeholders, regarding their direct and/or indirect stake in the company and its performance. Who were demanding an adequate response from the company? On June 8, 2007, Mattel was first alerted