Supply Chain Management of Mattel, Inc - Case Study Example

Supply Chain Management - Mattel, Inc Name: University: Date: Table of Contents Running Head: SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT - MATTEL, INC 1 1 Supply Chain Management - Mattel, Inc 1 SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT - MATTEL, INC 25 2 Table of Contents 2 Table of Figures 3 Supply Chain Management - Mattel, Inc 4 Executive Summary 4 1.0 Introduction 6 2.0 Company Situational Analysis 7 2.1 Major Markets 7 2.2 Mattel Product Categories 8 2.3 Product Life Cycle – Mattel Barbie 8 2.4 Implications of This PLC for Mattel’s Supply Chain Design 9 3.0 Porter’s 5 Forces Industry Analysis 11 3.1 Internal Rivalry 11 3.2 Bargaining Power of Suppliers 12 3.3 Bargaining Power of Buyers 13 3.4 Threat of New Entrants 14 3.5 Threat of Substitutes 14 4.0 Supply Chain Map description 15 5.0 Supply Chain Strategy and Value Propositions 17 6.0 Conclusion 20 6.1 Recommendations 20 7.0 References 21 Table of Figures Figure 1: Product Life Cycle Graph (Komninos, 2002) 9 Figure 2: Activities and firms in a supply chain (Tan, 2001) 17 Figure 3: Illustration of logistics postponement strategy (Pagh & Cooper, 1998) 18 Figure 4: Competitive Advantage Dimensions (Li, Ragu-Nathan, Ragu-Nathan, & Rao, 2006) 19 Supply Chain Management - Mattel, Inc Executive Summary With the increasing complexity of products and services, supply chains have turned out to be more and more multifaceted in the wake of globalization and outsourcing. In consequence, this has influenced risk, altering it constantly. A risk is the likelihood of damage, hazard, injury, or other outcomes that are unwanted; in this case, risk is associated with the recall of the Mattel toys. Basically, changing and erratic demands in the toy industry have generated a volatility layer because of rapid product lifecycles as well as customized and undersized selling-openings. The demand for toys and the needs of the toy retailers are exceedingly volatile; therefore, toy manufacturers such as Mattel, Inc have been very responsive in the market. Still, the majority of toy manufacturers respond to this volatile demand with conventional strategies that cannot meet the required demand, especially in terms of mass-production. As it will be evidenced in this report, the toy industry supply chain is becoming more dynamic and complex due to escalation of risks. The risk’s focal points are changing continuously within the supply networks dynamism mainly because the supply operations have been outsourced to the foreign countries and also due to the fact that the product/service life-cycle is increasingly becoming complex. Mattel, Inc has recently been experiencing a decline in the sales of its toy products; in consequence, the company’s stock value has been cut by almost half. In general, the toy industry has experienced a growth in revenue, and the competitors have gained market share at the expense of Mattel. Mattel was once the world’s biggest toy maker, but poor supply management and recalling of toys in 2007 have resulted in the decline of sales. Still, Mattel’s manufacturing base is diversified internationally with facilities in different countries that offer efficient quality control practices. Furthermore, the company’s toy brands are most recognizable and powerful across the globe. In this report, the focus is on Mattel’s supply chain with view of the fact that effective management of the supply chain is a valuable way of improving organizational performance as well as securing competitive advantage. This report is divided into four sections: (i) Mattel’s company situational analysis; (ii) Porter’s five forces analysis; (iii) Mattel’s supply chain map description; (iv) supply chain strategy and value proposition. 1.0 Introduction Owing to the present competitive scenario, companies are challenged to search for ways of meeting the expectations of the customers cost-effectively. This can be achieved by looking for parts of the supply-chain process that are less competitive, finding out the customer needs that are yet to be met, formulate goals for improvement, and swiftly adopting the needed improvements (Bala, 2014). Mattel, Inc is headquartered in California and focuses on designing, manufacturing, as well as marketing different types of toy products. The core product lines of the company include; Fisher-Price preschool toys, Hot Wheels diecast vehicles, Barbie fashion dolls as well as Disney toys. Mattel also manufactured toys for movie makers, but the majority of the toys are manufactured outside the U.S. (its biggest market), mainly in China, and other countries in the Southeast Asia. The company’s main manufacturing facilities are in China, Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Furthermore, the company uses vendors (third-party manufacturers) in Asia, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand. Mattel was established in 1944 and its first products, included doll house furniture and simple picture frames that had mixed success. The company has close to 31,000 employees worldwide who work hard to ensure the company achieves its strategic goals. Most of the Mattel’s products are sold directly to consumers through the company’s Website, catalog, as well as patented retail stores. Besides that, the company sells its products directly to the retailers, which includes free-standing and discount toy stores, department stores, and chain stores. The products are also sold to wholesalers and are distributed through distributors and agents. The products are sold in over 150 countries and the company’s operations are in almost 40 countries. Without a doubt, managing the company’s supply chain with such a scope is very hard; still, Mattel’s global supply chain is important for the success of the company. In order to ensure market success, the company ensures accountability at all supply chain stages before the products reach the customers. The engineering staffs are the source of Mattel’s supply chain strength since they design products that can be scaled up considerably during high demand periods devoid of straining (Gibbons, 2016). As mentioned by Godiwalla and Bronson (2015), companies that are well established have an advantage over the younger and smaller firms in terms of resources and experience. In this report, the focus is on Mattel’s supply chain with view to the toy recalls. 2.0 Company Situational Analysis 2.1 Major Markets Mattel, Inc. major markets are located across the globe; Europe, North and Central America, South America as well as Asia. Given that Mattel is the biggest toy manufacturer in the world, the company has a good reputation. Mattel is located in different parts of the world; therefore, it has a wide range of corporate ethics and cultures, which are compatible with the individual country. Without a doubt, U.S. culture is much different from Indonesian culture, for creditability, Mattel ensures that the needs of all places are met. Mattel’s girl products like American Girl dolls, Princess Dolls, and Barbie have high demands worldwide, especially in the emerging markets. For instance, the company’s international sales increased by 13 per cent in 2010, the sales growth were strong in Asia-Pacific region as well as Latin America (Mattel, 2010). Still, the company has experienced a number of challenges, but the main one is the toy recalls. The recalls in 2007 focused on the toys that had lead paint, manufactured in China. Basically, lead paint is considered to be very harmful to the health, particularly to children. The recalls affected Mattel’s market share since they were accompanied with lawsuits. 2.2 Mattel Product Categories Mattel’s international products have been differentiated from those marketed domestically by changing the demographic preferences and tastes because of geographic difference. For this reason, the company has remained competitive because of its current core product lines as well as its capability to change and innovate in the dynamic market. Mattel is the main designer, manufacturer, and promoter of different toy products globally. The company’s portfolio of products and brands have been categorized into three groups: The first group is the Mattel Girls & Boys Brands, which includes including Barbie accessories and fashion dolls, Little Mommy, Hot Wheels, Polly Pocket and many other dolls. The second group includes the Fisher‐Price Brands, which includes the Little People, Fisher‐Price, View‐Master, BabyGear, Sesame Street, among others. The third group is the American Girl Brands, which includes Bitty Baby, Just like You, and many others. 2.3 Product Life Cycle – Mattel Barbie As mentioned by Redmill and Dale (2012), every product, and service has a particular life cycle. Basically, the life cycle can be defined as the period from the first launch of the product until when it is withdrawn. Clearly the understanding of a product’s life cycle (PLC) can facilitate the firm to realize and understand the right time to introduce the product and withdraw it from a market (Komninos, 2002). Figure 1: Product Life Cycle Graph (Komninos, 2002) The Mattel’s Barbie toy products are at the declining stage of the PLC since the sales of Barbie toys have recently declined (Armental, 2016). Basically, the Sales of Barbie has been falling progressively since 2012, and this decline has put pressure on the company’s overall results considering that other products such as preschool Fisher-Price are also experiencing some sales decline (Kell, 2014). Given that the sales for Barbie are declining, Mattel has been forced to maintain the product by revitalizing it through addition of new features. 2.4 Implications of This PLC for Mattel’s Supply Chain Design As opined by Aitken, Childerhouse, and Towill (2003), to compete in the present marketplace that is highly competitive, supply chains have to be engineered so as to match customer requirements and product characteristics. Essentially, when products advance through their life cycles, the requirements normally experience dramatic changes. Therefore, the strategies of the supply chain have to be matched dynamically for maximization of the competitiveness. While companies continue to develop more innovative and newer products, the end-users are keen to buy the latest goods. Scores of companies concentrate on showcasing the state-of-the-art technology in their products, but most companies like Mattel place their emphasis on products that can be sold for an extended period of time. Although it could appear noble for firms to regularly phase out older models and repeatedly market new products, it can result in challenges in a number of business’ sections. Short product life cycle normally put much pressure on companies to make a new gadget and release it prior to their rivals; normally, this strains the company's supply chain. Mattel has properly organized its supply chain with the goal of consistently improving its products and to be able to rely on the state-of-the-art technology so as to achieve their sales goals. According to Steffens (2003), a supply chain that is improperly managed can negatively influence the sales. Mattel has reliable suppliers who ensure the company is never short on product; in consequence, the high consumer demand is always met. Still, Mattel has a complex and long supply chain which is attributed to the company’s global operations; for this, reason, Mattel has outsourced the production of most of its products and have allowed some of its suppliers to take part in the product design. When Mattel outsourced its design capabilities, they failed to coordinate and manage the information flow amongst the supply chain participants; this led to toy recalls. The design of Mattel’s Barbie had resulted in organizational success since it significantly and directly impacts almost every critical factor for success. 3.0 Porter’s 5 Forces Industry Analysis According to Baulch (2014), the toy industry is a growing and ever-changing industry, which is continually inventing new ideas. As a result, competition in this industry is exceedingly high. In the toy industry, toys are categorized into three groups: traditional toys, video games, and casino games. Most of the companies are manufacturing all of these categories; for instance, Mattel used to produce only the traditional toys, but this changed in 2006, when they joined the video games category. Recently, the video games have become more and more profitable as compared to the traditional gaming mainly because the consumers are using devices, which allow online or electronic or electronic games. For companies to remain competitive in the toy industry, they must be innovative. 3.1 Internal Rivalry Given that the toy industry is very competitive, Mattel has continually faced stiff competition, mainly from its main competitor, Hasbro. In the past, the toy market was divided into ‘boy’ toys which were dominated by the Hasbro products such as NERF guns and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and the 'girls’ toys, which was dominated by Mattel’s American Girl and Barbie. However, the electronic games squeezed the growth of the toy industry; therefore, Mattel and other companies decided to diversify, and are currently competing in all areas. Lately, Hasbro has managed to secure the Disney Princess line’s license, which was long-held by Mattel. Hasbro's lines that are considered to be more valuable are wholly owned rather than licensed; therefore, this makes the company less vulnerable. Lately, Mattel improved its chances of penetrating the construction-toy market through acquisition of MEGA Brands. This has resulted in rivalry between Mattel and Lego and, the industry’s biggest toy manufacturer. Even though, MEGA Brands acquisition offered Mattel a decent market share (10 per cent), Lego still retains close to 90 per cent of the market. MEGA Brands have successfully integrated Despicable Me (NBC Universal) and SpongeBob (Nickelodeon) franchises into their construction-toy products. Therefore, Mattel is benefiting from such franchises. Besides that, Mattel is facing little threat from small manufacturers since the company deals mainly in licensed IPs and depends on branding. In the toy industry, branding is considered to be the powerful force; most plastic dolls are similar in many aspects but cannot make higher sales as compared to those having Princess Elsa or Barbie name. Mattel has been absorbing and adapting small-scale competing firms such as Bratz. Still the company is facing enormous competition in almost all its product lines and the internal rivalry has been exacerbated by the recent developments in the toy industry. The latest trends towards shorter PLCs for toys, high utilisation of technology on toys and age compression has consequently all increased competition in the industry. Furthermore, competition is progressively increasing because large percentages of toy sales are made by the retailers who offer shelf space to competitor’s products. 3.2 Bargaining Power of Suppliers In terms of manufacturing, the threat posed by Mattel’s suppliers is relatively small since the company owns a bigger percentage of its production facilities and has numerous facilities across the globe; therefore, the company is somewhat protected from currency and political instability. Furthermore, the company’s suppliers and third-party manufacturers are strictly controlled and maintain the best accountability as well as inspection and programs in the toy industry since 2007, after the toy recalls. Therefore, no supplier or third-party manufacturer has adequate bargaining power that can significantly affect Mattel. Aside from the toy recalls in 2007, Mattel have had less scandals or negative exposure in their supply chains and manufacturing processes. Still, the company revenues are sourced mainly from third party licenses from companies like Nickelodeon and Disney. Loosing such licenses can enormously impact the company’s business; therefore, the license holders have a high bargaining power. Furthermore, the industry demand’s price elasticity is moderately high during the year; in consequence, the supplier power is reduced. 3.3 Bargaining Power of Buyers Given that Mattel’s products are consumer goods, they are vulnerable to the customers’ changing tastes. The toy manufacturers normally experience demand shifts between toys. Besides the changing consumer tastes, Mattel has been forced to be satisfied with retailers such as Wal-Mart that stand between them and the consumers. Such retailers normally put pressure on the company in terms of demand and prices. Target, Toys "R" Us, and Wal-Mart are Mattel’s biggest customers since they account for 35 per cent of the international sales; therefore, the buyers have a significant bargaining power. Since the company has operations in different countries across the globe, its mass distribution has compelled the company to cope with large retailers that have significant buyer power. Even though the licensing contracts of Mattel are exclusive, individual toys with short product life‐cycles place the company at the risk of losing substantial revenue source if consumers resolve to cut the hit product purchase. 3.4 Threat of New Entrants Currently, Mattel is one of the largest manufacturers of toys in the world, and has brands with commanding market shares as well as licenses that are globally recognized. At Mattel’s current level, new entrants are unlikely to seriously challenge the global nature of the company’s business. Still, the company is facing challenges from large-scale retailers that are introducing toys with private-label so as to compete with Mattel’s high toy prices. Besides that, the company faces serious threat if the license holders release and opt for direct product development. Even though the product diversity and size of Mattel makes it resistant to interruption by new entrants in the toy industry, the company is not invulnerable. For instance, in 2001 when MGA Entertainment introduced the Bratz doll line, the Mattel's flagship Barbie was enormously impacted in terms of sales to the extent that the line was shut down following a legal dispute. In the toy industry, entry is challenged by the business seasonality since most sales are made during the holiday season. Despite the existing obstacles, new entrants as evidenced by Marvel can be successful. Marvel entered the toy industry by partnering with Sony. 3.5 Threat of Substitutes In the toy industry, substitution is a key threat; for instance, the toy sales have been eroded by the electronic in almost all age brackets, and there is no sign of this trend changing. Generally, the toy industry has been forced to adapt to fiercer internal competition and slower growth because of the videogames encroachment. Earlier, Mattel efforts to enter the video game industry through partnerships have failed. Without a doubt, substitutes pose high threat to Mattel than its main competitor, Hasbro. This is attributed to the fact that Hasbro having have succeeded to license its brands out to designers of video game, particularly the Transformers series. Besides that, Mattel's brands face a threat from sports since the company sold Wham-O, its sports subsidiary. Since the demand for toys is declining, Mattel is well positioned to make complements by means of cross‐branding. Still, the declining leisure will in the future seriously threaten the company’s revenues. 4.0 Supply Chain Map description In 2007, a series of toy recalls was made by Mattel, which totaled over 20 million toys (Stanwick & Stanwick, 2010). The main reason for the recalls was the loose magnets and excessive lead. All of the toys that had been recalled had been made by Mattel’s third-party manufacturers in China. Basically, the recalls resulted in intense condemnation of Mattel Chinese supply chain, in spite of the fact that over 85% of the toys that had been recalled were because of design problems (magnets) and not due to poor manufacturing (utilization of lead paint). Basically, the process of toy manufacturing is very simple, but defects of the supply chain like the use of lead paint by suppliers may result in severe consequences. Therefore, Mattel had to redesign its supply chain so as to prevent such defects from reoccurring. Gardner and Cooper (2003) assert that managing, tracking and visualizing the supply chain have become increasingly complex as companies continue to pursue outsourcing strategies and with the supply chain becoming more global. Therefore, Mattel supply chain map links the firm’s strategic planning process so as to allow for assessment of supply chain structure and membership. Gardner and Cooper (2003) argue that a supply chain map is required to distribute and catalog important information in order to survive in a dynamic environment. Basically, the map allows for the visualization of the supply chain and exhibits areas that need more analysis or demonstrate clear inefficiencies that can hardly been seen when a small section of the supply chain is examined. Mattel’s principal subsidiaries include Pleasant Company, Mattel Factoring, Inc., Fisher-Price Inc., Mattel Sales Corporation, Mattel Overseas, Inc., Mattel Investment, Inc., and Mattel International Holdings B.V. Besides that, the company has three main operating units; American Girl Brands, Fisher-Price Brands, and Mattel Brands. Mattel produces its products through third-party manufacturers and its company-owned facilities. Besides that, the company purchases some of its products from entities that are unrelated, especially those designing, developing, and manufacturing toys. To improve flexibility in production as well as the distribution of its products, Mattel uses the company-owned facilities to manufacture the majority of its core products while the third-party manufacturers are tasked with producing non-core products. The company’s principal manufacturing facilities are in Indonesia, China, Malaysia, Thailand, as well as Mexico (see Appendix). The company manufactures its products in different facilities across the globe to ensure that the supply of its products is not disrupted by risks such as economic instability, civil unrest, political instability, and changes in government regulations and policies. The current Mattel’s production capacity can handle the expected volume in the foreseeable future. The company production is based on forecasts and customer orders. Most of the company’s raw materials are sourced from different suppliers but the prices are often fluctuated. 5.0 Supply Chain Strategy and Value Propositions The objective of integrated supply chain strategy according to Sweeney (2012) is to seamlessly generate logistics functions and manufacturing processes across the supply chain as a competitive weapon, which cannot be duplicated easily by competitors. When the supply chain is well integrated, coordination of information and materials between customers, manufacturers and suppliers as well as implementing the mass customization and product postponement in the supply chain become very easy. Figure 2: Activities and firms in a supply chain (Tan, 2001) In view of Pagh and Cooper’s (1998) four supply chain strategies, the logistics postponement strategy fits well with Mattel current operations. This is so because manufacturing at Mattel are based on speculation (historical trends). The company directly distributes its fully finalized products to the retailers and customers from its centralized inventory. Furthermore, every manufacturing operation at Mattel is inventory initiated and is carried out before the logistics operations. Imperatively, most of Mattel’s logistics operations are completely end-user order initiated. According to Pagh and Cooper (1998), this strategy eliminates or reduces the logistics anticipatory nature since the products are directly distributed to retailers/customers. Figure 3: Illustration of logistics postponement strategy (Pagh & Cooper, 1998) Given that the current toy market is exceedingly competitive, high customer expectations and the rapid technology advancement, toy makers such as Mattel are finding it hard to retain their competitive advantage. For this reason, establishing supply chain partnership between firms and partners’ coordination are exceedingly valued. Bratić (2011) posits that there are numerous supply chain dimensions that directly affect the company’s competitive advantage: innovativeness, resource, flexibility, output, as well as information. Supply chain as mentioned by Cai, Liu, Xiao, and Liu (2009) is a dynamic tool for management; therefore, improving the performance has continuously become an important issue for most manufacturers, suppliers as well as the retailers with the goal of sustaining the competitive advantage. One of supply chain competitive dimensions is price and cost; that is to say, the company’s capability to command premium prices as well as provide competitive prices depends on the costs incurred in the supply chain. According to Li, Ragu-Nathan, Ragu-Nathan, and Rao (2006), the price dimension has an effect on both the profit and market share. Basically, the value trade-off and price determines the level of customer satisfaction in the toy industry. Another dimension is quality, which as opined by Leondes( 2003) measures the firm capability to design as well as manufacture products capable of fulfilling the expectations of the customer expectations. In the toy industry, quality has turned out to be the main sourced of competitive advantage, especially in the international marketplace. In 2007, the quality issue of Mattel product lines led to recall since some of the toys were not fit for use. Li, Ragu-Nathan, Ragu-Nathan, and Rao (2006) mention that quality is normally impacted by the product design, inbound suppliers’ quality, as well as delivery and manufacturing performance. Figure 4: Competitive Advantage Dimensions (Li, Ragu-Nathan, Ragu-Nathan, & Rao, 2006) 6.0 Conclusion In conclusion, the report has focused on Mattel’s supply chain. As mentioned in the report, risk management and partner selection in a multi-tier supply chain are some of the issues that toy makers such as Mattel are facing. Evidently, managing accountability in a globalized supply chain is very challenging. Basically, supply chain strategies like that employed by Mattel offer companies an opportunity to deliver their products in a cost-effective and timely manner. The toy recalls have forced Mattel to rearrange its conventional logistics and production structures. The success of Mattel’s supply chain has been attributed mainly to reduction of uncertainty and risk through utilization of complex projecting techniques. Mattel’s present business environment has been characterized by shorter product lifecycles, constant change, as well as high demand uncertainty. The company’s main product, Barbie has lately been experiencing challenges, forcing the company to espouse the concept of agility with the goal of achieving sustainable competitive advantage. As evidenced in the report, effective supply chain management has come to be the most valuable way of retaining competitive advantage. 6.1 Recommendations Following the toy recalls, Mattel should sign with suppliers so as to ensure that the value and quality of the supplies are up to code as well as safe. This will enable the company to reduce the number of future recalls as well as improve sales. Furthermore, Mattel should make sure that its multi-tier supply chain can meet the required standards. Mattel should understand that when it adds levels to its supply chain, it become more and more difficult to inspect the tiers at the lower level. The company should ensure that low-tier companies have enough financial resources so as to ensure the products supplied are of the required quality. Besides that, the company should ensure that its first tier suppliers understand the significance of product integrity and safety; therefore, their performance should be in line with Mattel‘s expectations. Such recognition should be passed on to all successive tiers in the supply chain. Furthermore, the company should consider a third party for monitoring its supply chain. 7.0 References Aitken, J., Childerhouse, P., & Towill, D. (2003). The impact ofproduct life cycle on supply chain strategy. International Journal of Production Economics, 85(2), 127–140. Armental, M. (2016, April 20). Barbie's decline hurts Mattel profit. Retrieved from MarketWatch: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/barbies-decline-hurts-mattel-profit-2016-04-20 Bala, K. (2014). Supply Chain Management: Some Issues and Challenges - A Review. International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, 4(2), 946-953. Baulch, J. (2014, September 26). Toying around: How the Toy Retail Industry is changing. Retrieved from Breed Communications: http://www.breedcommunications.com/2014/09/toying-around-how-the-toy-retail-industry-is-changing/ Bratić, D. (2011). Achieving a Competitive Advantage by SCM. IBIMA Business Review, 1, 1-13. Cai, J., Liu, X., Xiao, Z., & Liu, J. (2009). Improving Supply Chain Performance Management: A Systematic Approach to Analyzing Interactive KPI Accomplishment. Decision Support Systems, 46(1), 512 – 521. Gardner, J. T., & Cooper, M. C. (2003). Strategic Supply Chain Mapping Approaches. Journal of Business Logistics, 24(2), 37-64. Gibbons, P. (2016). Barbie’s Dream Supply Chain. Supply Chain World, 108-111. Godiwalla, Y. H., & Bronson, J. W. (2015). Diversity Management in International Supply Chains: Strategies for Effectiveness. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 5, 366- 375. Kell, J. (2014, January 30). Mattel’s Barbie sales down for a third consecutive year. Retrieved from Fortune: http://fortune.com/2015/01/30/mattels-barbie-sales-drop-third-year/ Komninos, I. (2002). Product Life Cycle Management. Thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Leondes, C. T. (2003). Computer Aided and Integrated Manufacturing Systems (Vol. V). Singapore: World Scientific. Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T., & Rao, S. S. (2006). The impact of supplychain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance. Omega, 34, 107 – 124. Mattel. (2010, July 15). Mattel Reports Second Quarter 2010 Financial Results. Retrieved from Mattel: http://news.mattel.com/news/mattel-reports-second-quarter-2010-financial-results Pagh, J. D., & Cooper, M. C. (1998). Supply Chain Postponement and Speculation Strategies: How to choose the right strategy. Journal of Business Logistics , 19(2), 13-33. Redmill, F., & Dale, C. (2012). Life Cycle Management For Dependability. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. Stanwick, S. D., & Stanwick, P. A. (2010). The ethics of outsourcing at Mattel. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 8(4), 179-183. Steffens, P. (2003). The Product Life Cycle Concept: Buried or Resurrected by theDiffusion Literature. Academy of Management Conference (pp. 1-29). Denver: Technology and Innovation Management Division. Sweeney, E. (2012). Supply Chain Integration: Challenges and Solutions. In P. Evangelista, A. McKinnon, E. Sweeney, & E. E., Supply Chain Innovation for Competing in Highly Competitive (pp. 1-26). Hershey PA: Business Science Reference. Tan, K. C. (2001). framework of supply chain management literature. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7, 39-48. Appendix Mattel’s Supply Chain Map Returned Products Raw Materials Manufactured Products Read More