# EPA Design fo r the Environment (DfE) Logo Testing Focus Groups

SUMMARY REPORT

Submitted to : 

# Ketchum

Revised September 26 , 2014TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introductio n

– Objectives and Methodology

................................ ................................ ..................... 1

Awareness and Use of Certification Seals

................................ ................................ ......................... 3

Logo Evaluation

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 5

Perceptions of the Design for the Environment Program

................................ ................................ .. 1 7

Communication Preferences

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 18

Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1 9INTRODUCTION

- OBJECTIVES AND METHOD OLOGY

This report summarizes the results of qualitative research conducted by Alan Newman Research
on behalf of Ketchum and its client, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Background and Research Objectives

Background

. The EPA is in the process of developing a new logo for t he Design for the Environment (DfE)

, a 15 year

- old volu ntary program that works in partnership with industry,

env ironmental groups and academia to identify safer chemicals and allows safer chemical

- based products to carry the DfE label.

R e search o bjectives. This r esearch was intended to explore consumers’ p references regarding the DfE logo. Specific objectives include d the following :

 I dentify logo elements that are most effective i n communicating the DfE program
 Identify consumer preferences between five logo alternatives
 E xplore overall perceptions and att it udes regarding the DfE program
 U nderstand consumers’ communication preferences regarding the DfE program

– i.e., how they would like to see/ receive additional information about the program

Target Audiences

General screening criteria. A ll who participa ted in the focus gr oups shopped at a food store ( i.e., grocery or natural foods), hardware/home improvement store, or large general merchandise retailer (e.g

. , Wal

- Mart, Target, etc .) at least two to four times per month

– most did so more
often. The grou ps represented a mix of income greater than $15,000 ; about two thirds reported
annual incomes of between $25,000 and $75,000 , while about a third were higher ($75,000

- $ 100 ,000 +). A mix of educational level (high school graduate or higher ) , gender, and

rac e/ethnicity was also represente d across groups. T hose who worked in environmental or chemical engineering fields were excluded from the research.

Two audience segments. Two distinct participant segments were queried: General Consumers and Leaning Green Consumers.

 General C onsumers were qualifying retail shoppers who met the annual minimum income requirement for participation. They were not queried during screening regarding their attitudes about produ ct safety or their knowledge of environmental issues.

Alan Newman Research 1 Leaning Green Consumers were screened to represent a moderate interest in choosing safe products and in environmental issues. All indicated that it was somewhat important to them to select products (e.g., cleaning products, personal care products) for their households that can help protect their own health and that of their family members and/or pets. In addition,
all self -identified as having either low or moderate knowledge of environmental issues (those with no knowledge or high knowledge were excluded). Nearly all also indicated they had

s pecifically chosen a product in the past three months because it was safer for the
environment.

Methodology

A to tal of six focus groups were conducted

. Groups were held in September of 2014 in three
markets - Richmond, V A; Chi cago, IL ; and Los Angeles, CA. In each market, two groups were
conducted – one with G eneral Consumers and one with Leaning G reen 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 a half to an hour and 45 minutes.

G roups began with an introductory discussion of participants’ general awareness of certi fication seals (e.g., the USDA O rganic label and U.S. EPA Energy Star logo ) and if/how they used these when shopping. P articipants then evaluated fi ve alternative DfE logo designs, first in individual response questionnaires, and then in group discussion. Next, they were presented with a description of the DfE program and asked to select which two of the five logos most effectively communicated the program. Then, a logo that included the term fragrance- free

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

When reading this report, it is important to remember that focus groups are a qualitative research method. Findings are not statistically projectable to the populations of leaning green and general

consumers.

Alan Newman Research 2AW ARENESS AND USE OF CERTIFICATION SEALS

A t the beginning of the groups, the moderator showed participants products bearing certification
seals . These included the following:

PRODUCT CERTIFICATION SEAL

Package of General Electric (GE) light bulbs

Container of Stonyfield yogurt

P articipants discussed their likelihood of purchasing these products and their familiarity with the logos included on them.

 O verall, participants perceived that certification seals were intended to communicate that products meet standards ( for safety, environmental impact, etc.). Participants in Chicago and Los Angeles were asked what comes to mind when they thought of “product certification programs.” Their responses included the following: “that it’s safe,” government-approved,” it passes “a toxicity test.”

 Th e En ergy Star and USDA Organic seals were familiar to virtually all participants across groups. Other certification seals of which some were aware included the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval and Underwriters Laboratories.

 A cross groups, several participants said th ey looked for the Energy Star seal when making purchases, including light bulbs and appliances. Participants said the Energy Star seal communicated that consumers can save money and protect the environment at the same time. A few said it also suggests a p ossible tra deoff
– i.e., energy

- efficiency but lesser performance.

 The importance of the USDA Organic seal to participan ts varied. The majority – in both the
General C onsumer and Leaning Green segments - said they did not seek it out. Generally

, this wa s because they did not regularly purchase organic foods , as well as because the USDA Organic logo communicate s higher cost. So me were also skeptical that it is trustworthy or meaningful. In contrast, the USDA Organic seal was used by some to help select p roducts –

Alan Newman Research 3particularly some Leaning Green consumers and/or consumers with very young children, who purchased organic baby food

.

Alan Newman Research 4LOGO EVALUATION

Logo Evaluation Process

Participants were presented with five alternative DfE logos, one at a time. The log os were labeled with letters as follows (Note previous EPA labeling of these logo alternative is parentheses.)

P (B2) Q (A1) R (B1) S (A2) T (C)

The order in which logos were pr esented and discussed was rotated f rom group to group. After
exposure to the first logo and without discussion , participants completed an individual response questionnaire. They repeated this process for each of the five logos. After all logos were
evaluat ed, participants discussed each one, one at a time.

After discussing each logo, participants were then presented with a description of the DfE program. With this context in mind, they then completed a second questionnaire, in which they
identified a fir st and second choice of the logos that most effectively communicated the DfE program. After moderator polling of the group, each logo’s perceived effectiveness was discussed (in o rder of the group’s overall preference)

Participants concluded this section with a review of two additional logos:

 Logo T, on which Fragrance Free had been added (the moderator emphasized that it could be added to any logo ) to explore their views/attitudes regarding fragrance free language.

 T he current DfE logo , to get a brief r esponse to this logo and a quick comparison to the five logos they had been evaluating.

Alan Newman Research 5Logo Design Elements

Across logos, the key images were easily recognizable and communicated safety concepts effectively, particularly when these elements were pres ented together.

 T he images of the house and people communicated that a product would be safer for people, families, and for household us e.

 T he house was seen as essential for conveying “safer for home, household use, and family”

–

no t “just the enviro nment.” Using the circle in place of a house ( in two design alternatives ) was seen as a general design element (communicating nothing in particular) by most participants and as the world/globe by a few. W hile it was not perceived negatively, once partici pants had seen a logo with a house, most preferred that.

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

. ( A few suggested tha t a pet be included with the family because of the importance of pet

- safe products to them

. )

Green leaves communicated a more “environmentally friendly” product that is safer for the environment than products without the logo. The leaves were not misinte rpreted as representative of “all natural” or “organic” ingredients.

A multi

- colored logo was important and preferred; in particular participants voiced a preference for the color green , which both attract ed attention and communicate d that the logo is re lated to the environment

. The one monochromatic logo 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 consistently s een as an importan t feature that visually organizes the logo and,
for so me, makes it seem like a stamp of approval. A bold border was especially appealing

.

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

.

Alan Newman Research 6Logo Terminology

Exploration of the language used in the logos revealed the following:

The Safer Choice headline was both visually compelli ng and a strong messaging element. Not only was it p er ceived as bold and eye

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

– tha t 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 underlying copy in each logo sufficiently conveyed its pu rpose, and/or questioned the ambiguity of the phrase.

The use of the term safer (i.e., safer choice , safer ingredien t , safer product standard ) was usually accepted

– but did elicit some resistance. Some found safer to be vague and wondered, “Safer th an what?” This generally occurred before the DfE was explained. Safer was accepted by most who criticized its use after they had a better understanding of the program, specifically that all product ingredients met the EPA standards. However, f or a few, th e term safer seem ed wrong after they read the program description which refers to safest chemicals

.

A reference to the US EPA was a meaningful, important logo element for most participants.
It communicated t hat the product meets governmen t standards devel oped by a recognizable,
credible e nvironmental agency. The vast majority of participants were familiar with the EPA,
but a very few did not seem to be aware of it. (The mention of the EPA in the URL, as well as
the dot gov designation, also established lo go credibility.)

Of all the combinations of terms used to describe the requirements a product had to meet to carry the program logo , safer ingredient criteria seemed most effective overall. Findings regarding participants’ reactions to the specific termi nology include the following:

 Criteria and standard

. Most participants preferred c riteria over standard

. Criteria w as clear to participants and t here was not significant pushback/negative response to its use. In

contrast, across groups, a few participan ts responded negatively to standard . For some, the singular standard was distracting , since participants expected there would be more than one
standard

. For others, standard implied regular or a safety rating that was not the highest (as
in standard rating

, better rating, best rating).

Alan Newman Research 7 There was a tendency for participants to want a descriptive word before criteri a

.

• Safer ingredient criteria

. For many

, ingredient was important and compelling because it suggests that each product ingredient is examined and meets standards . Use of the term ingredient held up even with moderator probing whether or not they had selected the
word only because it appears in the DfE description. A few participants commented on the use of the singular form ingredient

. For a f ew of these, it was somewhat confusing

– they wondered if there was only one ingredient in the product or if only one ingredient was safer. However, this response was not widespread.

• Safer chemistry criteria

. The term c hemistry was somewhat p olarizing acr oss groups. Some felt it was distracting or negatively associated it with harmful chemical s, chemical reactions, and/or unpleasant memories of chemistry class. In contrast, a number of participants were comfortable with the term chemistry and thought tha t it communicated the DfE program description well.

• Safer product criteria

. Product was an acceptable word, but usually did not increase participants’ preference for a logo; when it was present in the logo, other factors become more important. However, t here were a few participants who preferred this language

– they saw product as simpler as and more consumer

- friendly than ingredient and chemistry

.

Views regarding the inclusion of the URL (epa.gov/saferproduct) were mixed but usually neutral to positive

. Some who supported including the URL said they might use it, and/or felt it
should be there in case consumers want to learn more. The references to US EPA and dot gov furthered the logo’s credibility for some. Others were not interested in the web site . They could not envision visiting. Still others were convinced that the URL would inevitably be too small when the logo was applied to an actual product label.

Overall, views regarding the incorporation of fragrance free in the logo were neutral to

nega tive

. While r ecognizing and purchasing fragrance free products were important to a small but noticeable group of participants , participants expected that the fragrance free banner would be very small and that such information might be redundant on packagi ng. Moreover, they felt that the precise meaning of fragrance free in this usage

- “ fragrance free without t he use of a masking agent”

– while important, is much too complicated to communicate with the fragrance free banner.

Alan Newman Research 8Logo Preferences

Logo pref erences varied between the General Consumer and Leaning Green segments. However, it is important to note that, despite individual preferences, positive and negative responses to various logo design/terminology elements were similar. This suggests that a logo can be developed that will be appropriate for both audience segments.

 General Consumers . Preferences were distributed across logos. Logo P was the most frequently preferred, followed by Logo Q.

LOGO P LOGO Q

Ultimately, Logo P was chosen because participants liked its heavy border (like a stamp), use of only a few large

- type words and large visual element. Logo Q was appealing primarily because of the strong Safer Choice headline and (for a few) the overall brevity of Meets U. S.
EPA Criteria.

Logos R and S were close behind and nearly tied in their moderate appeal, while Logo T was preferred by almost no one.

 Leaning Green. This segment clearly preferred Logo S, followed by Logo R

.

LOGO S LOGO R

Alan Newman Research 9Logo S was chosen for its bold headline ( Safer Choice ), the term chemistry , and its border. Logo R was chosen almost exclusively for use of word ingredient

– which many people felt was exactly the right word , especially given the logo meanin g as described in t he DfE program description (i.e., When you see the DfE label on a product, it means the DfE scientific review team has screene d each ingredient for potential human health and environmental effects and that the product contains only the s afest chemical ingredients
available

. ) However, this logo’s lack of a border was seen as a significant negative.

Logos Q and P were nearly tie d in their moderate appeal, while Logo T was preferred by
almost no one.

Responses to Individual Logos

Logos are presented and discussed below in general order of preference across group s. Difference s in preferences and evaluation by segment are noted as appropriate.

LOGO S

 This was the most frequently preferred logo amo ng Leaning Green Consumers and was moderately a ppealing among General Consumers.

 Participants across groups identified several positive aspects of this logo, including the following:

• The m ulti

- colored, bold headline

– Safer Choice

– was both eye

- catching and communicated a compelling ben efit.

• The word chemistry was s een as posi tive and accurately descriptive of the program.

It s uggested the use of less harmful chemicals , which was “comforting.” Also, it conveyed to a few that the product has been shown to be safer in laboratory testing

,

Alan Newman Research 10which they related to chemistry

. However, the word was not without detractors, as
described below.

• The b order was perceived as visually organizing the logo and making it seem like a stamp of approval.

• The g reen bottom with white lettering also helped with visual organization

- it create s a “base” for the logo

.

• The l eaves/people/house graphic was v isually appealing

, and conveyed “ safer for family, children, household use, and the environment .”

• Green leaves especially communicate d environmental safety.

 Neg atives identified regarding this logo included the following:

• The pale colors appeared faded, muted, and not bold enough for a number of participants

.

• The word c hemistry was distracting or quite negative for some. S ome found it odd and/or thought it sh ould be replaced with chemical

. Others felt it had an intimidating tone
because it reminded them of high school chemistry class and/or dangerous chemical s and
chemical reactions/combinations.

• The lack of the URL was seen as a negative by a few.

LOGO P

 Logo P was the favorite logo among General Consumers

. Only a very few Leaning Green participants selected this as a first or second favorite, probably because other logos did better
for them in presenting the positive elements that this one d id

– e.g., wording, use of big
noticeable words/headlines.

 P ositive aspects of Logo P were identified as follows:

• The particularly h ea vy border ma de the logo appear definite , “more official” and “like a stamp.”

• Safer product was an appealing general ter m for a few , because it was consumer

- friendly
and not as specific as ingredient or chemistry.

Alan Newman Research 11• The p romin ence of the leaves/people/house graphic was appealing to some.

• The inclusion of the URL was positive.

 Negatives mentioned by a few included the follow ing:

• The lack of a bold headline detracted from visual appeal and likelihood of noticing it on a product

.

• The words were perceived by some as too small and hard to read

.

• Some perceived there were “t oo many words .”

• The URL was seen as too small.

LO GO R

 Logo R was the second most frequently preferred logo among Leaning Green c onsumers, and moderately appealing to General Consumers.

 Many of those w ho chose Logo R selected it almost solely on the basis of its use of the word ingredient

. I ngredient conveyed, positively, that individual ingredients in the product had been examined for their safety.

 The leaves/people/house graphic was again appealing

– some like d that it was larger in this logo than in other ones. A very few commented on the missing chimney on the house and said they would prefer inclusion of the chimney.

 Negatives regarding this logo included th e l ack of a border and the lack of visual organization (i.e., e verything is about the same size

, there is no green “base” to anc hor it as in Logos S and Q )

.

Alan Newman Research 12LOGO Q

 Logo Q was the second most frequently preferred in the General Consumer groups

, and the
third most frequently preferred among Leaning Green participants.

 Participants identified several positive aspects o f Logo Q , including the following:

• It includes the Safer Choice headline.

• The w ords are large and bold

.

• It included the f ewest words

– e.g., brevity of Meets US EPA Criteria appeal ed to some.

• A b order is present.

• There is a perceived e mphasis on the pe ople (possibly due to lack of the house image).

• The URL is present

 The primary and significant negative regarding this logo was its lack of the house image. In addition, the lack of descriptors for criteria (e.g., safer ingredient criteria) seemed to mak e it less compelling for some.

Alan Newman Research 13LOGO T

 Logo T was by far the least favorite logo across groups, primarily because it was monochromatic. Participants felt the lack of multiple colors reduced its visual impact. It was called “plain” and “b land.”

 In particular, the leaves lack ed a green color, which was an important way to communicate environmental safety for many

.

 The l ack of house ima ge was also a negative

.

 As mentioned previously, t he word standard elicited some negative response. For some, the singular form seemed odd (they assumed there would be multiple EPA s tandards to be met ). For others, standard implied average, as opposed to better (safer) or best (safest).

Fragrance Free Logo

Participants were shown a logo that included the language Fragrance Free

. They were told that in the product s on which this logo would appear, fragrance free is an attribute that some might look for (example: dryer sheets). In addition, participants were told that the fragrance free
banner could be added to any logo, and its inclusion with Logo T was as an example only.

FRAGRANCE FREE LOGO

Alan Newman Research 14 Recognizing and purchasing fragrance free products were important to a small but noticeable group of participants. Consequently, f r

agrance f ree wa s an i mportant concept across groups, perhaps more with L eaning Green consumers (and particularly those with family members suffering from allergies).

 A number were neg ative about including it on the logo because 1) it would likely already be placed on th e product by the manufacturer and 2) it would be extremely small on the logo. Even these participants, though, stressed the importance of being able to identify fragrance free products easily.

Participants were provided with the following additional infor mation and asked if it changed their thoughts about the logo.

Right now an unscented product could contain ingredients known as masking fragrances. This fragrance

- free logo would indicate that not only are fragrances not present, but these masking fragra nces are also not in the product.

 A few in the L eaning G reen group s in Chicago and Los Angeles responded positively to the added explanation about masking fragrances. It did not seem to be as important in the
General Consumer groups. Several participan ts commented that this precise definition of fragrance free, while important, would not be communicated by the addition of the Fragrance Free term on a logo.

Current DfE Logo

Participants bri efly evaluated the current DfE l ogo , which was presented to all groups on a handout, as well as to Chicago and Los Angeles participants on a household cleaning product. Note that, the logo handout did not contain the statement Recognized for Safer Chemistry

, although it appeared in the logo on the product shown to par ticipants.

CURRENT Df E LOGO

Alan Newman Research 15 The G eneral C onsumer group in Chicago was quite negati ve about this logo

– they thought it
looked amateurish. I n other groups

, participants were more neutral to positive. However, only a very few said they would substitu te this for the logo they selected as favorite. Across

groups , participants said they would never notice it on the product shown to them (it was extremely small)

.

 A few in every group questioned the use of a globe for a logo from the U

. S

. EPA. They fel t it should be an image of the United States instead.

 On the household product, a few in L os Angeles noticed the statement Recognized for safer chemistry next to the logo and wondered if this always accompanied the logo. They thought it was a good statem ent.

Alan Newman Research 16PERCEPTIONS OF THE DESIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM

Participants briefly dis cussed their reactions to the following description of the DfE Program.

The U.S. EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) is a voluntary program that works in
partner ship with industry, environmental groups, and academia to help protect people and the planet by identifying safer chemicals and allowing safer chemical

- based products to carry the DfE label. For more than 15 years, DfE has been evaluating the human health and environmental concerns associated with traditional and alternative chemicals and empowering businesses to make safer chemical

- based products. When you see the DfE label on a product it means the DfE scientific review team has screened each ingredient f or potential human health and environmental effects and that the product contains only the safest chemical ingredients
available.

Overall Responses to DfE Program

I n response to this description, most participants were positive about the DfE program and thought it was worthwhile and valuable to consumers.

 Many said that, costs being about equal, they were likely to choose a product bearing the DfE logo over one without it.

 A few voiced concerns about the effectiveness of environmentally

- friendly pro ducts, such as household cleaners and laundry detergents.

 Parti cipants were asked which was more important to them

– that a product is s afer for people or that it protects the environment

. Some participants refused to select one and said
that both wer e important . However, the majority of participants ultimately said safer for people was the most important and compelling.

Alan Newman Research 17C OMMUNICATION PREFERENCES

Participants were asked if they were interested in learning more about the DfE program, and if

so, how they would prefer to see/receive communications about it. Most said they would be interested in learning more about the program. The following communication channels were suggested:

 Pr inted materials in stores

– in shelf displays , signage

, p roduct hang tags , etc

. (t his was most important across groups).
 A w eb site that is mobile

- friendly (for researching the logo/program in stores or at home)

.  Social media

– especially Facebook, where information is likely to be shared.
 You Tube videos.
 QR code at the point of purchase that can be scanned with a smartphone.
 Public schools

– educational programming and/or information to be brought home by
students.
 Doctors’ offices (pamphlets in waiting area).
 Public service announcements (radio, TV).
 Menti on on CNN an d other news programs

.  Dr. Oz.
 Communications from product manufacturers, including coupons for logo

- bearing products.

Alan Newman Research 18CONCLUSIONS

The certification seal concept was familiar to all participants. Many at least noticed seals when shopping, a nd several said they considered them when comparing products in the same
category. The USDA Organic label and the Energy Star logo were both mentioned by some as ones they had referred to in the past.

Virtually no participants were aware of the Design for Environment (DfE) program or logo prior to the research sessions. I n Los Angeles , two participants said they had seen the current logo but they were not familiar with the program itself.

Responses to the DfE program were usually positive. Once par ticipants saw the logos and the program description, many perceived that the program was worthwhile and that, costs being comparable, they were likely to choose a product bearing the DfE logo instead of one without.

T he five logos that were tested commun icated that a product meets government/EPA standards that ensure it is safer for people, household use, and the environment. This messaging was generally clear to participants without context

– i.e., prior to exposure to a DfE program description. This su ggests that the final logo will be meaningful to consumers even if they lack a detailed understanding of the DfE program.

Nonetheless, it appears that c onsumers will benefit from education regarding the DfE

program. L ogos did evoke questions about the D fE’s definition of safer products and how products are determined to be eligible to use the logo. After exposure to the DfE description, participants understood the program better and their interest in using the logo as a product
selection tool increased.

Based on this testing, a hybrid logo would appear to be most effective communicating the DfE program and DfE product evaluation and approval

. None of the logos tested was overwhelmingly preferred across segments. However, there was substantial agreement regarding the effectiveness of key logo elements. Based on the results of the logo evaluation, the following logo design is recommended:

 Create a hybrid logo based on Logo S (including, as in S, the bold Safer Choice headline)

.  Eliminate the word chemis try and either have no descriptive word ( Meets U.S. EPA Criteria

– as in Logo Q ) or, more likely, replace it with the word ingredient (Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredient Criteria) or ingredients (Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredients Criteria).
 Consider enclosing the logo in a heavier border

.  Use bolder, more saturated colors than in current version of Logo S.

Alan Newman Research 19 Consider including the URL – benefits of its presence (i.e., credibility of EPA and dot gov

, source for more information about the program) outweighed criti cism of it (i.e., too small, hard to read, would not use).

Recognizing and purchasing fragrance free products were impo rtant to a s mall but
notice able group of participants. However, they look to bolder manufacturer-supplied labeling to identify this product feature and would not expect to find it on the DfE logo. Further, based on participant comments, no masking additives is a too obscure/unknown “ certification sto r y ” to b e

co mmunicated ef

fectively b y t he Fragrance Free banner.

Alan Newman Research 20