In the previous post, MassTortDefense began exploration of some of the issues associated with the “year of China recalls.” During fiscal year 2007, the CPSC announced 473 recalls, of which 288 were from China.
We continue in Part Two with some practical tips that may be considered to mitigate the risks of using China-based suppliers.
TO DO LIST
U.S. products sellers have to respond with proactive planning:
Testing and Sampling
A report from two Canadian researchers notes that since 1988, a majority of recalls of toys were related to design issues as opposed to poor manufacturing. But, assuming a prudent design, adherence to specifications becomes the focus. US importers have at times in the past chosen products from a showroom, such as in Hong Kong. At other times, products from China are purchased through one or several middlemen, with the ultimate U.S. buyers having little information about the manufacturing or QC of the products. And importers have relied on purchase orders – a looming battle of the forms scenario — rather than on a comprehensive contract.
Now, companies may need to turn to be more involved in the process upstream. Random sampling rather than relying on test certificates from their sellers may be wise. Companies may need to negotiate vendor and supply contracts to require those counterparts to test products for compliance with specifications and U.S. regulations. Such a compliance program may include third-party testing and a system to track products in the retail stream of commerce. If self-testing is employed, it may be prudent to have it conducted by a group of employees incentivized to make the testing accurate and thorough. Companies need to ensure that they have strong process controls at the key risk points of the distribution chain. QC can involve early warning systems, and includes making corrections, documenting results. The timing and scheduling of QC interventions may need to be modified. Even “sealed” products may need to be randomly inspected.
There can be surprisingly high management turnover rates in China, and local management is often the source of fraud when it occurs. Multi-national product sellers may explore returning to use of expatriate management where possible, although they may lack the level of understanding of the local environment. Importers may also seek to get a better sense of the sub-contracting activities of their suppliers. Indeed, tracking vendors, subs, and components supplied for the product can be important, even as the supply chain is a moving target.
Note, in this setting, it may be a mistake to leave negotiations and contract management to less senior people. The audit structure employed by management should also be of a design to detect and deter fraud and nepotism at the local management level. This may require not only more inspectors, but a different kind of inspector/on the ground agent.
Contracts can be both a risk reduction and dispute resolution mechanism. It is imperative that the contract clearly lay out responsibilities and rights on QC, specifications, delivery, testing, sub-contractors, performance milestones. U.S. companies are seeking to add arbitration clauses to new contracts, and as existing supply deals expire. Arbitration in a forum that Chinese courts will recognize may be a means to share the burden of a potential recalls, which for the most part has fallen on U.S. importers. China does not generally recognize ad hoc arbitrations. Some importers are looking at CIETAC, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission as a possibility. In a CIETAC arbitration, there will still be limited discovery, and short document-focused hearings. Another possibility is the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center.
Companies may think about choice if language provisions in their arbitration clauses, the nationality of the arbitrators, discovery rights, injunctive relief the parties consent to. Choice of law clauses are also key in renegotiated contracts.
Importers are also seeking bonding from their Chinese partners as a way of ensuring financial sharing of the cost of recalls.
The most important kind of risk sharing, however, may be the risk of non-payment, which is only viable when the U.S. importer has good knowledge of the supply chain — who are the suppliers, and what are they supplying.
It may increasingly make sense to provide for litigation support in the contract, so that the U.S. importer has access to needed records and witnesses should legal issues arise.
Many companies have a crisis management team in place, trained to handle problems with their products, should any arise. The team may include legal, HR, PR, QC, and regulatory members.