February 2015


# Summary & Testing Feedback for DfE Label Redesign

Project Background & Summary

................................ .................... page 1 Designs Tested

................................ ................................ .............. page 5 Supporting Data

................................ ................................ ............ page 6 Testing Methodology

................................ ................................ .... page 16



# Project Background & Summary

EPA consulted a broad range of stakeholders in developing the new Safer Choice label. This document

summarize s information received from partner companies, stakeholders, and consumers and explains how it helped EPA arrive at final label designs

. 

# Project Goals

• Better convey the Safer Product Label Program mission to promote safer products;

• Empower consumers to purchase safer products and increase recognition of the Safer Product Labeling Program; and

• Communicate to consumers the human health benef its, as well as the environmental benefits

, of choosi ng safer products.



# Understanding Consumer & Stakeholder Preferences

• Consumer focus groups

– September, 2014

o Conducted by Alan Newman Research

o Three markets: Richmond, VA; Skokie, IL; Marina del Rey, CA

o Separate focus groups for general and “leaning green” consumers at each market

o 54 participants across six focus groups

• Consumer online survey

– October, 2014

o Conducted by Ipsos, a firm that maintains a preexisting representative national panel

o 2,009 adult participants (905 male, 1104 female)

• Public comment

– September and October, 2014:

o 1,716 comments submitted via program website and social media

• Company partners and stakeholders :

o Stakeholder listening sessions

– August 4

- 5, 2014

- 94 stakeholders (partne rs, NGOs, trade associations, retailers) attended

- 38 provided comments

o Partner webinars

– July 8, 2014

- 58 Industrial and Institutional ( I&I ) and 36 consumer product partners attended

- 16 I&I and 12 consumer product partners provided comments

o One

- on

- one phone conversations

– June and July, 2014

- 14 company partners and 9 stakeholders

1February 2015

o Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

– The program consulted with FTC throughout the label redesign project, including duri ng the final design phase. The new label reflects FTC’s review and input on design testing and selection

. 

# Final Design

– A Family of Labels

Primary label design

This label incorporates preferred design elements from commenters across interest and population groups

. The design strongly conveyed to our

c onsumer audiences that labeled products are safer for their homes and
families

. Safer Choice is a bold , distinctive, and memorable name . The house
and figures connect the brand to people. T he leaves show that a labeled product is safer for the environment . The blue and green colors reflect a
health and environmental focus with tones that are bright and optimistic.

Industrial & Institutional (I&I)
This design is a simple variation that maintains brand identity and
communicates better for Industrial & Institutional and consumer products
used outside the home . The circle icon is shaped like the earth, and an optional url including ‘dfe’ makes a link to the Design for the Environment Program. Including ‘dfe’ in the url will aid its acceptance in environm entally preferable procurement programs, since some programs include explicit reference to DfE in their requirements

.

Fragrance Free This variation would be offered to partners for use on products that are fragrance free . The core components of the design are kept intact with the
addition of “Fragrance F ree. ” This design will be easily recognizable as part of the overall brand family.

2February 2015



## Major Design Elements

Name: Safer Choice

Goal : Choose a name that conveys to consumers and purchasers that a labeled product meets EPA’s voluntary Standard for Safer Products and contains only the safest possible chemical ingredients.

Testing & Feedback: “ Safer Choice ” was the preferred choice of consumers and stakeholders , versus a label with no name or different name (Smarter Choice).

• Found to be visually compelling and attention grabbing

• Viewed as a strong, memorable messaging element

• Captures the Safer Product Labeling Program mission

The co nsumer online consumer survey found that 65% of consumers thought “Safer Choice” is effective in showing that a product is “safer for people and families” and 60% found it effective in showing that a product helps protect the environment. In both cases, t he majority of the remaining respondents were neutral.

“Safer Choice” was preferred by 89% of the public that submitted comments regarding the label name via the program website and social media.



## Icon at top of Label : House (with Circle Made Availabl e as Design Variation)

Challenge : Design a graphic that works for both the consumer and I&I sectors

.

Outcome : T he house as the primary icon, with a circle variation made available to partners, particularly in the I&I

sector. The label variations will be distinguishable yet clearly identifiable as part of the same design family.

Testing & Feedback:

• Consumers who provided input through focus groups, online survey, and online comments all selected the

house as the most effective design in communicating huma n health protection

.

o The house was preferred by nearly 64% of the public that commented on the icon via the program

website or social media.

• Partners who manufacture consumer products preferred the house, while those who manufacturer I&I products preferred the circle

.

3February 2015



## Tagline : Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards

Challenge : Develop a tagline that conveys clearly and concisely the meaning of the label, and program, to

consumers

.

Outcome : “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards”

Testing & Feedback: P referred over “ Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredients Criteri a” and strongly preferred over “Meets U.S. EPA Criteria” across testing efforts.

• Found to be the most meaningful tagline by consumers in the consumer online survey

. Nearly half of

consumers who too k the online survey rated “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards” as the better tagline. (Figure 1)

• “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards” was the preferred tagline for 45% of the public that submitted comments via the program website and social media . The next most p referred tagline, “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredients Criteria,” was preferred by 28% of the respondents.

Figure 1 : Online Survey Tagline Preference



## Overall Layout and Aesthetic

Strong preference was given to a multi

- color design (green and dark blue) to communicate both environmental and human health protection, as well as including a url ( www.epa.gov/saferchoice ) so people can easil y learn

more.

A bold border around the design was favored to help the label stand out. Approximately 95% of respondents through the program website and social media preferred label layouts that used a border. Of these, 57% preferred the boldest (thicke st) border design. Of comments that discussed the color design, 90% preferred the darker

multi

- color design. 

### 15%

38% 47% 

## Preference

“Meets U.S. EPA
Criteria”

“Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredients
Criteria”

“Meets U.S. EPA

Safer Product

Standards”

Total respondents: 2,009

4February 2015


# Designs Tested

Below are the label designs that were tested among partner companies , stakeholders, and the public.

Consumer Online Survey

________________________________ ________________________________ _________________

A B C

Consumer Focus Groups

________________________________ ________________________________ _________________

A1 A2 B1 B2 C C1

Website and Social Media

________________________________ ________________________________ ________________

A B C D

Stakeholder Listening Sessions, Partner Webinars, & Conversations with Individual Partners and Stakeholders

__________

A B C D

5February 2015


# Supporting Data

The supporting data for each major design element

– name, tagline, icon at top of label

, and overall layout and
aesthetic

– are summarized for each testing effort

, below.



# Name: Safer Choice

A. Consumer online survey

Table 1: Findings on Name from Consumer Online Survey

Design A Design B

TOTAL ANSWERING: 2,009 adults

Q: The name "Safer Choice" is effective in showing that the product is safer for people and families Strongly/ Somewhat Agree 65% 65%

Neutral

- don't agree or disagree 23% 23%
Strongly/ Somewhat Disagree 12% 12%

Q: The name "Safer Choice" is effective in showing that the product helps protect the environment

Strongly/ Somewhat Agree 60% 61%

Neutral

- don't agree or disagree 26% 25%
Strongly/ Somewhat Disagree 14% 14%

B. Consumer focus groups

The “ Safer Choice ” name was both visually compelling and a strong messaging element across all focus groups

. Not only was it perceived as bold and eye

- catching, but it communicated that a product would be safer than others in its category. Moreover, it summarized what participants wanted to feel when purchasing a product

– that they were , in fact, making a safer choice. However, there were some who felt the headline was unnecessary. Although they did not strongly reject “ Safer Choice

, ” they preferred fewer words, felt the taglines
in each label sufficiently conveyed its purpose, and asked “safer than what? ”

C. Comments submitted via DfE website and social media

While not all commenters offered feedback on the name, the majority of those who did prefer red the label name of “Safer Choice, ” which works well to identify products that meet the program’s Safer Prod uct Criteria. Only a small proportion mentioned concerns with that name, such as finding the term “safer” to be misleading

o r undescriptive and subjective.

Table 2: Findings on Name from DfE Website and Social Media Comments

Label Name DfE Partners Stak eholders General Public & No
Affiliation

Safer Choice 9 47 314

Other 2 6 36

6February 2015

A few relevant comments:

• "Safer Choice" is a simple catch phrase that is an important eye

- catcher and very memorable

.

• Emphasizing the "Safer Choice" wording makes it clear what this program is about

.

• I like having the word CHOICE in the label because the consumer will see it as their choice

– they are choosing the better option for their families and the environment.

D. Early Stakeholder & Partner feedback

Stakeholder listening sessions Of the 18 stakeholders who commented on the name, t he majority (10) preferred the name “Safer Choic e”

because it is more in line with DfE’s mission and will resonate with consumers. The remaining commenters (8) preferred Option C (with n o name). The name “Smarter Choice” was viewed as having too many possible meanings , with no focus on chemicals.

Partner webinars The majority of I&I (11 of 16 ) and Consumer (9 of 12 ) partners preferred “Safer Choice ” because it conveys a

strong message

. One I&I partner preferred “Smarter Choice.” Two I&I and three consumer partners preferred no name. One Consumer partner suggested incorporating “Safer Choice” into Option C with the tagline “U.S.

EPA Certified.”

Conversations with Partners and Stakeholder s The majority of partners (8 of 14) and stakeholders (6 of 9) preferred “S afer Choice” or “Safer Product ” since the word “Safer” directly communicates EPA’s and DfE’s mission and will make an emotional connection with consumers looking to protect their fa milies. Two partners and one stakeho lder preferred “Smarter Choice ” for reasons including that “Smarter” compliments the consumer, and that most consumers assume that the products on shelf are already safe. Two partners preferred Option C ( with no name ) s ince simplicity is key for

the label and associated messaging will be sufficient to “sell” the program . Two partners were split among the name options. One stakeholder suggested “Green Choice” or “Green Product” and another stakeholder had no preference between Smarter and Safer. One partner

, who prefer red “Safer

, ” expressed that the current DfE name/ label is preferable over any of the new design options.

Some product and chemical manufacturers have voiced concern over use of the term “Safer Choice” in meetings

outside of our structured solicitations for feedback. These stakeholders have explained that they are concerned that products that do not bear the label will be viewed as less safe by consumers. A label that does not include

a name would b e preferred by this audience.

7February 2015


# Icon at Top of Label : House (with Circle as Design Variation)

A. Consumer online survey

Design B (“Safer Choice” with house icon) was chosen by nearly half of respondents as the most effective design option in conveying product safety for families and the environment. Design C (the house design with no associated name) was chosen by approximately one

- third of responde nts and one

- fifth chose Design A (“Safer Choice” with circle icon)

.

Figure 1 : Preference on Label Design from Consumer Online Survey

B. Consumer focus groups

The house icon was easily recognizable and communicated safety concepts effectively.

• The images of the house and people communicated that a product would be safer for people, famili es, and for household use.

• The image of the two people was frequently perceived as a parent and child. For some, this suggested
that a product would be safe r for use in homes where children are present.

• The house was seen as essential for conveying “safer for home, household use, and family”

– not “just the environment.” Using the circle in place of a house (in two design alternatives) was seen as a general design element (communicating nothing in partic ular) by most participants and as the world/globe by a
few. O nce participants had seen a label with a house, most preferred that design

. 

### 19%

49% 32% 

## Respondent label design preference

Design A (“Safer Choice” with circle icon)

Design B (“Safer Choice” with house icon)

Design C (House design with no associated name)

Total respondents: 2009

8February 2015

C. Comments submitted via DfE website and social media

DfE partners and stakeholders appear evenly split between the use of a house and a circle. The general public favors the use of the house. A few commenters observed that the chimney could be a viewed as a source of pollution.

Table 3: Findings on House vs. Circle from DfE Website and Social Media Comments

House vs. Circle DfE Partners Stakeholders General Public & No Affiliation

House 5 26 18 4

Circle 8 21 92

A few relevant comments:

• The house outline is vital to convey the notion of home

.

• I like [...] the circle. I feel it represents the world rather than just a section of the world.

• Having a house on the label makes I&I buyers think that the product is "retail grade" or "household strength" and they typically want stronger products that are "industrial strength" or "commercial grade."

• I think it is import ant to include both the house and the people to convey the message of "healthy family" and "healthy home."

•

... blue sphere behind people of multiple ages/generations implies safer for our world not just our homes.

• [favors circle]... not everyone lives in a hous e.

D. Early Stakeholder & Partner feedback

Stakeholder Listening Sessions Few stakeholders commented specifically on the house versus circle icon. Of the 18 stakeholders who
commented on the overall design

, preferences were fairly evenly split between Design C (the house design with no associated name) (9 of 18) and Design B (the Safer Choice design with the circle icon) (8 of 18) . One attendee indicated a preference for Design A (the Smarter Choice design which incorporates a house) . Two atten dees who preferred Design B suggested replacing the circle with the house label . O ne attendee questioned if using a house would distance the program from I&I manufacturers.

Partner Webinars Few partners commented specifically on the house versus circle icon. S everal I&I partners noted concern about using the home because it excludes consumer products used outside the home or in I&I settings. Two I&I partners suggested replacing the circle in Design B with the house in Design C. One I&I partner noted t he use of the chimney in Design C has bad connotations

.

Conversations with Partners and Stakeholders Few partners commented specifically on the house versus circle icon. The majority of partners (8 of 14) and stakeholders (6 of 9) preferred Design B (Safer Choice), either as is with the circle icon or modified to include the
house icon. I&I partners noted that the circ le icon will work better for their products than the house icon.

9February 2015


# Tagline: Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards

A. Consumer online survey

Respondents felt the tagline from Design 3

– “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards”

– was the most credible.

Figure 2: Findings on Most Credible Tagline from Consumer Online Survey

B. Consumer focus groups

Consumer focus groups explicitly tested the term “standard,” but t he focus group moderator also explored the difference in the way the terms “standard” and “standard s ” are perceived by consumers. Conversations with focus group participants indicated that the plural “standards” was preferable to the singular “standard.” For

some, “standard s ” was more appealing than “standard” because p articipants expected there w ould be more than one standard. The singular “standard ” implied a safety rating that was not the highest (as in stand ard rating, better rating, best rating)

.
For many, “ safer ingredient criteria ” was appealing because it suggested that each product ingredient is
examined and meets standards. “ Safer chemistry criteria ” was polarizing across groups. Some felt it was distracting or negatively associated it with harmful chemicals, chemical reactions, and/or unpleasant memories of chemistry class.

C. Comments submitted via DfE website and social media

DfE partners prefer r ed taglines A and D (see table below). Stakeholders ha d a strong preference for tagline D, and the general public preferred taglines C and D. There is a general preference for the use of “standards”
rather than “criteria

. ” The term “chemistry” is generally viewed negatively. 

### 15%

38% 47% 

## Most credible tagline

“Meets U.S. EPA
Criteria”

“Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredients
Criteria”

“Meets U.S. EPA

Safer Product

Standards”

Total respondents: 2,009

10February 2015

Table 4: Findings on Taglines from DfE Website and Social Media Comments

Tagline Option DfE Partners Stakeholders General Public &
No Affiliation

A: Meets U.S. EPA Criteria 4 10 25

B: Meets U.S. EPA Safer Chemistry Criteria 2 9 66

C: Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredient Criteria 1 15 10 6
D: Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards 4 3 2 162

A few relevant comments:

• ...‘criteria’ may a "big word" to some

.

• I am not sure how the word "chemistry" will resonate with people. I think "safer product standards" makes a stronger, more lasting impression.

• By using the word "product" tagline D clearly indicates that what is safer is the product the consumer is looking to buy.

• Using the term "safer product standards" encompasses more than ju st chemicals, which is more informative [than “ingredients”]

.

• “Safer Product Standards” is language people will understand without sounding like jargon

– criteria.

• The word criteria is vague standards is much better.

• My preference would be to modify A [Safer Choice circle design] by replacing “Meets US EPA Criteria” with “Meets US EPA Safer Product Standards.” The latter is more definitive and easier to understand by the public.

D. Early Stakeholder & Partner feedback

Stakeholder Listening Sessions
The tagline s “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards” (recommended), “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Criteria,” and “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredients Criteria” were developed after the stakeholder listening sessions . Below
is the feedback we received on the three taglines presented

.

Of the 14 individuals that commented on the taglines, their preferences were split among t agline s A (3), B (5),
and C (6)

. Several attendees indicated concerns about font sizing, many indicating that a short and succinct tagline would be more legible at smaller sizes.

Table 5: Findings on Taglines from Stakeholder and Partner Feedback

General Comments Tagline A : Meets U.S. EPA Criteria Tagline B:
Meets U.S. EPA Criteria for the Safer Product Labeling Program Tagline C: Meets U.S. EPA Safer Chemistry

Criteria

• May be confusing for
consumers: what “EPA Criteria” are being referred to?

• Shorter is better • Accurately communicates the program’s purpose

• May be too long • May be too long

• “Chemistry” may have good or
bad connotations

• Italicized font is hard to read

11February 2015

Partner Webinars
The tagline s “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards” and the tagline “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredients
Criteria” were developed after the partner webinars . Below is the feedback we received on four taglines (See
Table 6 )

. Note that Tagline D: Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Criteria was not part of a design, but was offered as an additional option during the webinar.

Of the 16 partners who commented on taglines , five I&I and four consumer partners preferred Tagline A . One I&I partner and two Consumer partners preferred Tagline B . One I&I partner and three Consumer partners preferred Tagline D

.

Table 6: Findings on Taglines from Partner Webinars

General Comments Tagline A (favored):

Meets U.S. EPA Criteria Tagline B:
Meets U.S. EPA Criteria for the Safer Product Labeling Program Tagline C:
Meets U.S. EPA Safer Chemistry Criteria Tagline D:
Meets U.S. EPA Safer
Product Criteria

• Preference for the upper/lower case version of Tagline A (instead of all c aps) • Use of “labeling” may dilute the impression of

a science

- based criteria • Consumers may have a negative view of “chemistry” and
“chemicals”

• Suggested change to “Safer Product Criteria” • Preferred over Tagline C by several partners

• More consumer friendly

Conversations with Partners & Stakeholders The taglines “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards” and “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredients Criteria” w ere not
discussed when talking to individual partners and stakeholders

. Designs discussed:

• A: Meets U.S. EPA Criteria

• B: Meets U.S. EPA Criteria for the Safer Product Labeling Program

• C: Meets U.S. EPA Safer Chemistry Criteria

• D: Meets U.S. Safer Product Criteria ( offered as additional option )

There was no consensus on preferred taglines. Several or ganizations recommended the use of “EPA Certified” because it’s short, simple, and direct. Others preferred more descriptive tag line s to ensure the consumer knows
wh ich criteria are being met. It was noted that the use of “product” in the tagline is redu ndant since the label will be on products. A few re commended that the tagline needed to better convey the idea of leadership versus just meeting criteria. Several partners also noted t he tagline shou ld be more official

– i.e., clearly convey that
this is EPA’s labeling program, not a company’s attempt to self

- certify their own products.

12February 2015


# Overall Layout and Aesthetic

E. Consumer online survey

The results for the three questions most pertinent to overall layout and aesthetic are presented below.

Table 7: Findings on Overall Layout and Aesthetic from Consumer Online Survey
Design A (circle) Design B (house) Design C (no name)

TOTAL ANSWERING: 2

, 009 adults

Q: The label is attractive and appealing

Strongly/ Somewhat Agree 61% 60% 59%

Neutral

- don't agree or disagree 27% 28% 29%

Strongly/ Somewhat Disagree 12% 12% 12%

Q: The visual design is effective in showing that the product is safer for people and families

Strongly/ Somewhat Agree 62% 63% 64%

Neutral

- don't agree or disagree 27% 26% 26%

Strongly/ Somewhat Disagree 12% 11% 10%

Q: The visual design is effective in showing that the product helps protect the environment

Strongly/ Somewhat Agree 59% 59% 59%

Neutral

- don't agree or disagree 26% 27% 27%

Strongly/ Somewhat Disagree 15% 14% 14%

F. Consumer focus groups

Green leaves communicated a more “environmentally friendly” product that is safer for the environment than products without the label

. The leaves were not misinterpreted as representative of “all natural” or “organic” ingredients.

A multi

- colored label was important and preferred; in particular participants voiced a preference for the color green, which both attracted attention and communicated that the l abel is related to the environment. The
one monochromatic label was consistently rejected, primarily because of its all

- blue color scheme. Moreover, bold, saturated colors were preferred by most to colors that appeared faded or muted.

A border was con sistently seen as an important feature that visually organizes the label

. A bold border was especially appealing.

Less copy and/or emphasized headline copy as design elements were preferred by the majority of participants. This was particularly true of p articipants who imagined the label shrunk to fit a small product label.

Mixed view on “ fragrance free

. ” A few noted that they seek fragrance free products due to allergens and liked the addition. Others thought it would be redundant and unnecessary s inc e product manufacturers will make the claim elsewhere on packaging.

13February 2015

G. Comments submitted via DfE website and social media

Border In terms of overall border preference, there is a very strong preference for the use of a border in the label. Partners and the general public strongly favor the bold border in Label Design D. There is no clear preference for specific border design from t he stakeholder commenters.

Table 8: Findings on Border from DfE Website and Social Media Comments

Border Option DfE Partners Stakeholders General Public & No Affiliation

A 1 8 64

B 0 7 15

C 0 2 13

D 4 7 14 7

Border 6 25 244

No Border 0 2 13

A few relevant comments:

• I like the border around the label , which helps it stand out

.

• Enclosing the label in a box is good because it clearly defines the boundaries of the label

.

• I also like the border on D, a nice thick, bold border that encloses the entire EPA label. This will help differentiate the EPA label from any verbiage/pictures on our labels.

• The unique shape and sectioned information draws the eye and makes the label easy to read and
understand.

Color There is a strong preference from all group s for the darker color palette used in labels A, C, and D rather than the lighter color palette in label B.

Table 9: Findings on Color from DfE Website and Social Media Comments

Color DfE Partners Stakeholders General Public & No Affiliation

Light Blue 0 1 22

Dark Blue 6 28 177

A few relevant comments:

• I like the darker blue, seems like a stronger and clearer message

.

• Darker blue [...] will stand out better on label

.

• I prefer the darker blue, as it would be easier to read especially when reduced in size.

14February 2015

URL There is a strong preference for the inclusion of the website URL as part of the label design. There was no clear preference among commenters between /saferchoice and /saferproduct. There are several comments that suggest the use of a QR code rather than (or in addition to) a URL.

Table 10: Findings on URL from DfE Website and Social Media Comments

Website Preference DfE Partners Stakeholders General Public & No Affiliation

Yes 5 45 286

No 0 3 18

epa.gov/saferchoice 1 3 11
epa.gov/ saferproduct 2 2 9

A couple relevant comments:

• I also like that the "Safer Choice" label is large and repeated on the web address. I think that would help the customer remember the web address rather than have "safer product" in the web address.

• I like the "saferchoice" web name since it emphasizes that consumers can choose.

H. Early Stakeholder & Partner feedback

Stakeholder listening sessions Few stakeholders commented specifically on the overall design and aesthetic. General comments included that a border is needed to contain the design on packaging, and that a curved border is more fluid

- looking than the rectangular border. Several comment ers said that they recommend the inclusion of a url or QR code to encourage people to seek additional information.

Partner Webinars Few stakeholders commented specifically on the overall design and aesthetic. One partner indicated a preference f or the da rker blue of Option C. Several partners suggested offering more color options to increase

contrast on product labels, especially the option of monochromatic labels.

Conversations with partners and stakeholders
General comments included that the border w orks well to visually contain all elements, and that a url or QR code should be included to help people easily obtain additional information. While partners in general responded positively to the blue and green in the designs, one partner suggested offeri ng more than one color palette so partners can choose what works best on their packaging.

15February 2015


# Methodology

The designs tested can be found in Appendix A and a summary of the data can be found in Appendix B

.

A. Consumer online survey

The consumer online survey was conducted among 2,009 adults (905 male, 1104 female), ages 18 years or older and living in the continental United States. The sample of individuals invited to participate in the survey were balanced to the U.S. population, b ased on demographic information (age, gender, educational attainment, geographic region, etc.) through the Current Population Survey 1

. All responses were collected October 6

- 8, 2014. The margin of error for this survey is +/

- 2.19 percentage points. Ipsos , a firm that maintains a preexisting representative national panel, implemented the survey.

The overall sampling frame for the online consumer surveys is the panel of individuals previously recruited by Ipsos (i.e., the Ipsos Online Panel) to participa te in online surveys. The Ipsos Online Panel is an actively managed research access panel that uses multi

- source recruitment to maintain a representative base of respondents. It includes individuals who have volunteered to take part in market research and is extensively profiled to efficiently target respondents.

B. Consumer focus groups

A total of six focus groups were conducted . Groups were held in September of 2014 in three markets

- Richmond

, V A; Skokie , IL; and Marina del Ray, CA. In each market, two groups were conducted

– one with General Consumers and one with Leaning Green Consumers.

A total of 54 participants were queried across groups. Ten participants per group were recruited (7 to 10 participated). Focus groups lasted about an hour and thirty minutes to an hour and forty

- five minutes

.

Groups began with an introductory discussion of participants’ general awareness of certification seals (e.g., the USDA Organic label and U.S. EPA Energy Star label ) and if/how they used these when shoppi ng. Participants
then evaluated five alternative DfE label designs, first in individual response questionnaires, and then in group
discussion s . Next, they were presented with a description of the DfE program and asked to select which two of
the five labe l s most effectively communicated the program. Then, a label that included the term fragrance

- free

, and the current DfE label were briefly discussed. Finally, they identified communication channels via which they would like to learn more about the DfE prog ram.

C. Comments submitted via DfE website and social media

On September 8

, 2014 the EPA started seeking feedback from the public on the proposed label designs. Label designs were posted on the DfE website at www.epa.gov/dfe/label , and social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and blog posts which were used to encourage people to visit the label redesign page and share their thoughts.

1 The Current Population Survey (CPS), sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is the primary source of labor force statistics for the population of the United States. The survey is ongoing. More
information can be found here: http://www.census.gov/cps/

16February 2015

A total of 1, 716 unique comments were submitted through the online comment system. Over 90% of these comments are from the general public or commenters who did not indicate their affiliation , with the remaining from DfE partners and stakeholders , 28 comments were prov ided by DfE partners (i.e., formulators in the DfE program)

, 56 comments were from local, state or government employees and 36 comments were from non

profits

. More than 125 comments were submitted through social media platforms ; their affiliations were no t
noted

. All comments have been recorded and analyzed to determine the label design preferences of the

commenters.

D. Stakeholder listening sessions

DfE hosted two label redesign listening sessions on August 4 and 5, 2014. A total of 94 attendees participated, of which 31 were consultants (for government or industry) or industry associations, 38 were product or chemical manufacturers and 4 were product retai lers. Additionally, there were 7 non

- profits, 9 state or federal government participants, an d 5 journalists. Of these attendees

, 3 8 provided comments. The listening sessions were announced in the Federal Register on July 16, 2014 and on the DfE website. Attendees were able to register for and attend one or both sessions.

E. Partner webinars

DfE hosted two partner webinars on July 8, 2014

– one for consumer product manufacturers and one for I&I product manufacturers. A total of 58 I&I and 36 consumer partners attended, with 16 I&I and 12 Consumer partners providing comments. The partner webi nars were announced via email to DfE partners on June 18,

2014

.

F. Conversations with partners and stakeholders

During June and July 2014 , DfE had one

- on

- one phone conversations with 14 partner s and 9 stakeholders who had expressed interest in the label re design project

, to gather feedback on initial designs before testing with the general public. Designs were shared via GoToMeetings so partners and stakeholders could view the designs but
not distribute them.

17