Getting a Grip on a Market Run Amok
mark September 25th, 2007
(Mark) The hoopla has faded in the weeks since the recent toy recalls. Yet, we’re still searching for a definitive cause.
It looked like Mattel would jump on the blame grenade, officially apologizing for “damaging China’s reputation” after finding that the majority of the recalls were caused by faulty process design. Mattel’s executive v.p. of worldwide operations said, “Mattel takes full responsibility for these recalls and apologizes personally” (sic?). The scene was clouded by Congressional committee. In this useful recap from The Nation, Lori Wallach of Public Citizen is quoted testifying that the “root cause is U.S. trade policy.” In the same post, Mary Teagarden of the Thunderbird School of Global Management states, “Chinese officials estimate that 50 percent of exported products do not even comply with Chinese laws …. Their system relies on self-regulation and we found that this does not work.”
So, it was the Chinese; no, Mattel; no, US trade policy; no, the Chinese.
Moments like these it’s hard not to cynically say our commercial system is less a market than a mad dash after finite – and ever dwindling – resources and capacities. Starting from the premise of lack, and placing the highest value on return-on-investment, it is difficult to expect corporations to behave differently. Such a frame not only allows, but demands a headlong rush to win a zero-sum game.
Don’t misunderstand. I am happy Mattel was willing to admit culpability. I am also certain that congressional oversight, which will hopefully lead to a reinvigorated Consumer Product Safety Commission, is a necessary corrective. And I agree that policies promoted by the last two administrations, blithely erasing economic borders without concern for underlying cultural differences, have caused substantial problems. (Teagarden’s comment, however, about Chinese inability to self-regulate – hopefully taken out of context – smacks of prejudice.)
All of these are more or less effective means to address the symptoms, but they are not the root causes Ms. Wallach suggests.
The cause is misplaced value, or perhaps I should say values.
So long as we allow the premise of lack to be our starting point, we must strive to keep corporate greed in check with governmental oversight. Mattel’s apology is more than we can hope for in such a system, but that apology (motivated as it was by self-interest) points outside this system to a real solution.
There is nothing inevitable about the “mad dash” that led to these recalls. Businesses can make different choices, to be more involved in their processes and in the actual manufacture of their products, to see that there is plenty in the world. “Producer responsibility” is a present and growing reality.
Trite as it sounds, however, the change must begin with you and me. If we operate from a premise of lack, we can expect no less from business.It comes down to placing values over value.
Can we look at an item and see more than the cost represented by the numbers on the price tag?
Of course we can. And we must.
We must realize the power that those
Once we grasp that essential truth, we can use that power to demand accountability from businesses, from growers and producers, and we will realize that it is our responsibility to keep toys coated with lead-based paint out of our children’s hands, that it is our responsibility to create and sustain a livable environment where our values and those of our fellow humans are the values that count most.
Then, perhaps, we will find that life is the value that trumps all others.
Peace, Mark
My comment about the Chinese ability to self regulate was a quote from a Chinese government official about the lack of compliance with China’s laws among Chinese manufacturers. My point was that China must regulate China–we cannot. My bigger point was the same as yours, it is our responsibility to demand accountabilty from businesses, producers and ourselves.
You should have gone to the testimony for accuracy. You could have watched the whole thing.
Thanks, Mary. We appreciate the correction.