There is an expectation by consumers, stakeholders, regulating agencies, and the industry that companies will conduct their business in an ethical manner, much less be involved in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) projects for the betterment of society. This new business obligation then leads the consumer(s) to require corporations to have integrity steering their actions and own “good behavior” (Hinkley, 2012 p 271). “As agents of global change, multinational firms are acting not simply as economic agents but also as moral agents” (Chiara, & Spena, 2011, p 62).
Mattel Inc. has been fighting a type of a ‘perception war’ since 1996, when a Dateline story linked the company with unethical business practices (Sethi, Veral, Shapiro, …show more content…
The “workers making Mattel toys are forced to stand for 10 to 13 hours, exceeding the nine hour working-day limit stated in Chinese law” (Burkitt, 2013). Microsoft had similar claims regarding their Chinese factories specifically, “NLC report alleges KYE recruits employees, many of whom are 16 and 17 years old to work 15-hour shifts six to seven days a week…and prohibited from talking or using the bathroom during work hours (Wingfield, 2010). As we can see, many multinational companies have been accused of similar unsettling actions, but the difference is most of them change their ways of doing business or their business partnerships to remediate the issues. Sethi claimed, each time they conducted on-site audits in the Mattel’s owned or contracted facilities in China, they uncovered continued employee mistreatment (2011, pp 504-512). Over the years, Mattel was given multiple opportunities to make corrective actions and follow through on the resolutions that had been promised, yet to this day they are still being accused of the same types of actions. No amount of embarrassing media coverage seems to be impactful to those in leadership at Mattel, at least not enough to make them put their staff well-being …show more content…
“Deductions must comply with local laws. Deductions for company provided food and living must be reasonable, affordable and if employees choose to live and eat outside of the company facilities they will not be charged” (Sethi, 2011, p 491). On many occasions, Mattel had awareness of the employee suffering from these unfair deduction practices, yet did not comply with their own internal regulations. When people work hard it is a normal expectation; they will be paid fairly, while not being charged for unnecessary for unused supposed benefits, to improve their (or their contractors) financial gains. For well over 15 years, Mattel and their Chinese factories have placed a higher value on their bottom line compared to the interests of the workers, not clearly disclosing what is being deducted and all the while requiring them to pay for services they did not