Beijing declares war on dangerous (foreign) toys?

This time last year you would have to be living at the bottom of a very deep well in the middle of nowhere not to know that the big China news story of the time was the issue of dangerous Chinese made goods being sold on foreign markets.

Indeed, you could barely pick up a newspaper or turn on your television without seeing doom laden stories about how foreigners were running the gauntlet every time that they purchased something that was made in China, and how it was all the fault of corrupt Chinese factory owners putting people's lives at risk by cutting corners in order to grease that little bit more off of the top of each product.

Matters were made all the worse by the fact that many of the products that were found to be dangerous were children's toys, because there are few things that get Westerners (or anybody else, for that matter) riled up than the idea of their kids being put in danger.

Something must be Done

At the time the cry from an enraged foreign public was “Something must be done”. However, this was were things became a little tricky. Mostly, because of the issue of who it was that should be “doing the doing”.

The official standpoint of Big Business was that, whatever was done, it shouldn't be them that was doing it. As such, they stressed that they should not be held accountable for the safety of products that they imported and retailed, and strongly opposed the introduction of tougher regulations compelling them to monitor standards more closely due to the potential cost implications. Washington, being the free and impartial institution that it is, agreed with Big Business.

In short, both agreed that no US party should be held responsible for the safety of US consumers, and then hurriedly parties passed the buck on to China.

Role on 2008

Role things forwards a year and the the buck that was passed in 2007 has remained passed.

With the exception of certain food products - Where an entirely different scandal has forced at least some movement - the number of Western companies that have brought in extra scrutiny on the Chinese made products that the sell can be written on the back of a matchbox. While the number of extra regulations that have been brought in by Western governments can be written on the heads of the matches themselves. This is to say that very little indeed has been done.

However, while the Western public has been vocal, and Western companies have kept their heads down lest somebody decide to regulate them more closely, somebody has been doing something. Though it is not whom you might expect, or what you might expect.

Movement?

Late last month, Beijing announced a renewed quality drive for exported children's toys, warning Chinese manufacturers that they were now, more than ever, in the spotlight, and that there would be “trouble” if they did not smarten up their act.


However, things are not as you might expect. The Crux of Beijing's pronouncement was not a warning to Chinese factory owners that the weight of the state would come down upon them if they cut corners during manufacturing, but instead a warning that they should be on guard for “faulty foreign designs”.


According to Beijing, toys that do not meet safety requirements will be not be granted export permits, and the companies that make them will be censured.

 

 

Faulty Foreign Designs?

While the Western headlines of the 2007 holiday season were about the recall of potentially dangerous toys from China, it was often left to the footnotes (if at all) to mention that the majority of the faults experienced in imported toys from China were not a down to sharp business practises, or even poor Chinese workmanship. In fact, the majority were down to design faults introduced prior to manufacturing. Faults which originated with Western companies, and which would have been present regardless of where the toy were manufactured.

Perhaps the best example of a faulty  foreign design ending up on foreign shelves was the Mattel Magnet scandal, in which the recall of some 18.5 million toys was initially blamed on Chinese greed and corner cutting, but was later revealed to be due a flaw in the designs given to the Chinese factories by Mattel.

Mattel was later forced to apologize to China over the scandal, though the story received considerably less press than stories blaming China.


Much of the Western media also neglected to include that the products in question were signed off as being safe in 2003, 2004 and 2005, and that although the fault was finally discovered in 2006 it was not until fall 2007 that the products were recalled. Under US regulations, which err on the side of self certification and regulation,  Mattel was not required to report this fault to state safety watchdogs.

According to a study done by the University of Western Ontario  approximately 77% of Chinese toy recalls during the given period were down to flaws in the original designs. The majority of which consisted of small parts, or detachable parts, that could create chocking hazards.

 

Role on 2008

Role things forwards a year and the the buck that was passed in 2007 has remained passed.

With the exception of certain food products - Where an entirely different scandal has forced at least some movement - the number of Western companies that have brought in extra scrutiny on the Chinese made products that the sell can be written on the back of a matchbox. While the number of extra regulations that have been brought in by Western governments can be written on the heads of the matches themselves. This is to say that very little indeed has been done.

However, while the Western public has been vocal, and Western companies have kept their heads down lest somebody decide to regulate them more closely, somebody has been doing something. Though it is not whom you might expect, or what you might expect.

Movement?

Late last month, Beijing announced a renewed quality drive for exported children's toys, warning Chinese manufacturers that they were now, more than ever, in the spotlight, and that there would be “trouble” if they did not smarten up their act.


However, things are not as you might expect. The Crux of Beijing's pronouncement was not a warning to Chinese factory owners that the weight of the state would come down upon them if they cut corners during manufacturing, but instead a warning that they should be on guard for “faulty foreign designs”.


According to Beijing, toys that do not meet safety requirements will be not be granted export permits, and the companies that make them will be censured.


Faulty Foreign Designs?

While the Western headlines of the 2007 holiday season were about the recall of potentially dangerous toys from China, it was often left to the footnotes (if at all) to mention that the majority of the faults experienced in imported toys from China were not a down to sharp business practices, or even poor Chinese workmanship. In fact, the majority were down to design faults introduced prior to manufacturing. Faults which originated with Western companies, and which would have been present regardless of where the toy were manufactured.

Perhaps the best example of a faulty  foreign design ending up on foreign shelves was the Mattel Magnet scandal, in which the recall of some 18.5 million toys was initially blamed on Chinese greed and corner cutting, but was later revealed to be due a flaw in the designs given to the Chinese factories by Mattel.

Mattel was later forced to apologize to China over the scandal, though the story received considerably less press than stories blaming China.


Much of the Western media also neglected to include that the products in question were signed off as being safe in 2003, 2004 and 2005, and that although the fault was finally discovered in 2006 it was not until fall 2007 that the products were recalled. Under US regulations, which err on the side of self certification and regulation,  Mattel was not required to report this fault to state safety watchdogs.

According to a study done by the University of Western Ontario  approximately 77% of Chinese toy recalls during the given period were down to flaws in the original designs. The majority of which consisted of small parts, or detachable parts, that could create chocking hazards.

China watchers, however, noted that while Chinese factory owners will be censured if they are found to be attempting to export potentially harmful children's toys there were no accompanying announcements stating what, if any, level of censure would be applied to foreign companies whom attempt to have Chinese companies manufacture goods using suspect designs. For example, no regulations were announced that would prevent a foreign company from passing on designs that were rejected as unsafe by one company to other companies until such time that it found one willing to look the other way, or what, if any, measures would be put in place to hold a foreign company responsible if it was aware of a fault existing but rather than passing this information on to the factory it simply continued to order more of the product despite knowing that it was potentially harmful. 

 Impact?

The impact of Beijing's quality drive will not be known for some time, though China watchers have expressed mixed feelings as to how dramatic the impact may be.

On one hand, Beijing is known for coming down hard on companies that embarrass or defy it, with punishments often being both heavy and far reaching. However, on the other hand, Beijing also lacks much of the infrastructure required to carry out any large scale operations against faulty exports over an extended period of time. This, combined with corruption, would may it difficult, if not impossible, for the Mainland government to carry out any sustained programs against faulty goods at the point of manufacture or export.

China watchers have also questioned as to whether the current economic climate may play more of a factor than any warning from Beijing. With Western consumers buying fewer and fewer goods, and wanting cheaper and cheaper goods, factory owners may not be able to turn down faulty designs and remain in business. Instead, choosing to turn a blind eye to them in the hope that hey can slip through the (rather large) wholes in the net being thrown over them.

Questions?

China watchers have raised a number of questions in relation to Beijing's announcement, including questions as to the fate of flawed goods that do not receive export permits. Would they be destroyed and, if so, who would foot the bill? In the past, goods that have not been granted export permits have found their way onto China's domestic markets. Either through legal sales (in cases where China's internal standards are different from its export standards), or “off the radar” through local outlets, either on their own or intermixed with legal products.

China watchers have also raised questions over whose standards should be used to judge safety? With different markets having different safety standards, making products that are legal in one market illegal in another.

For example, the US and the EU have different regulations regarding what chemical compound can be included in children's toys. In 2007 one US toy company issued a global recall of one of their toy ranges that was produced in China due to it breaching US regulations on led content. However many of the recalled units were shipped to Europe where they complied fully with EU regulations and thus could have passed through any safety inspections placed on them based on EU standards.

 In addition to raising questions about Beijing's newest annoucnement, China watchers have also raised questions about foreigner's reactions to it. Specficially as to whether they will be reasured by it. Accordign to soem Chian watchers the reaction in the West is likely to be muted at best. Partlly becausecause Beijing does not have a good track record onissues such as this, and partly because the West has a history of synisism and self interest when dealing with China that leads to good news being under reported, bad news being over reported, and to skeptisism to whatever good news does filter through: Not all of which is unjustified given Beijing's above emntioned treack record on these issues.

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit