Every Company Needs a Good Map

In today's Wall Street Journal the company that makes the toys involved in the latest recall (Sarge and others) was identified - Early Light Industrial Co. They of course claim that it was a subcontractor that is responsible for the use of the lead paint. The aforementioned subcontractor was identified as Hong Li Da also from China.

The issue, as the authors Casey and Zaminska note, is not a simple one:

"The identification of a major Hong Kong toy maker as the source of some lead-tainted toys sold by Mattel Inc. shows that when a big supplier is responsible for a production problem, its U.S. partners can face tough choices about what to do next.

Early Light Industrial Co. is so low-profile that it doesn't have a corporate Web site, let alone a public-relations department. Yet it is one of the largest toy manufacturers in Asia, with more than 40,000 workers, according to an employee."

(from Toy Makers Face Dilemma Over Supplier - Casey & Zaminska) 

This reminded me of the old saying, "The best way to keep the bank from foreclosing on you is to owe them so much money it is in their best interest to help you." In this case, if you are the major supplier, then what can Mattel do? They can't stop buying from you. Interestingly, ELI Co. also makes the popular Bratz dolls that are giving Barbie such a headache in the market for little girl's attention.

The owner of Early Light is identified in the article as Francis Choi, (this Forbes article sheds some early light on Mr. Choi) also known in Hong Kong as the "Toy King." Other than some inferences about his large position in the toy market not much else was revealed. There is a comment from a Hong Kong newspaper that Mr. Choi himself revealed the problem to Mattel.

One comment in the article really caught my attention. Quoting Sidney To, an executive from another toy company that contracts with ELI for production, "It's always better to work with the devil you know than the devil you don't." In this case, he is referring to the fact that you can clean-up a small error much easier than you can renegotiate contracts and create new relationships. This is true when the issue involves an accident. When it is negligence, some one needs to be held accountable. There was no mention of that aspect.

A few years ago Coke had trouble with the introduction of "New Coke." It just did not appeal to the majority of existing customers. Numerous taste tests were conducted in middle America during the development of the new formula. For some reason those results did not translate into broad acceptance. The CEO at the time Roberto C. Goizueta did not fire the Vice President responsible for the project. He said, "He'll never do that again, but a new person might." Perhaps, that is what we can hope for from this mishap.

Here is my question: If the person or persons responsible had poisoned the punch at a part for the children of the management of the companies involved, would they be so forgiving? 

To keep up with the links that have been coming in I have created a Squidoo page (lens): Recall Outrage Please stop by and contribute links, articles or opinions.

A big thanks to Roxanna/Miguelina for these links:

Mommy off the Record (gets a bit foul) when she sees the recalls and learns about other contaminated products. 

Izzy's Mom is unhappy with toxins in so many products for kids and babies.

Here's a link for an online petition from Moms Rising