EPA

Design for the Environment (DfE)

Logo Testing Focus Groups

SUMMARY REPORT

Submitted to:

Ketchum 

Revised September 26, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction – Objectives and Methodology .....................................................................................1

Awareness and Use of Certification Seals.........................................................................................3

Logo Evaluation.................................................................................................................................5

Perceptions of the Design for the Environment Program..................................................................17

Communication Preferences .............................................................................................................18

Conclusions........................................................................................................................................19
INTRODUCTION - OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

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 the Design for the 

Environment (DfE), a 15 year-old voluntary program that works in partnership with industry, 

environmental groups and academia to identify safer chemicals and allows safer chemical-based 

products to carry the DfE label.

Research objectives. This research was intended to explore consumers’ preferences regarding 

the DfE logo. Specific objectives included the following:

 Identify logo elements that are most effective in communicating the DfE program

 Identify consumer preferences between five logo alternatives

 Explore overall perceptions and attitudes regarding the DfE program

 Understand 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. All who participated in the focus groups 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 groups 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 

race/ethnicity was also represented across groups. Those 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 Consumers were qualifying retail shoppers who met the annual minimum income 

requirement for participation. They were not queried during screening regarding their 

attitudes about product 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

specifically chosen a product in the past three months because it was safer for the

environment.

Methodology 

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

markets - Richmond, VA; Chicago, IL; and Los Angeles, 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 a half to an hour and 45 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 logo) and if/how they used these 

when shopping. Participants then evaluated five 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 2 
AWARENESS AND USE OF CERTIFICATION SEALS

At 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

Participants discussed their likelihood of purchasing these products and their familiarity with the 

logos included on them. 

 Overall, 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.”

 The Energy 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.

 Across groups, several participants said they 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 possible tradeoff – i.e., energy-efficiency but lesser

performance.

 The importance of the USDA Organic seal to participants varied. The majority – in both the

General Consumer and Leaning Green segments - said they did not seek it out. Generally,

this was because they did not regularly purchase organic foods, as well as because the USDA

Organic logo communicates higher cost. Some were also skeptical that it is trustworthy or

meaningful. In contrast, the USDA Organic seal was used by some to help select products –

Alan Newman Research 3 
particularly some Leaning Green consumers and/or consumers with very young children, 

who purchased organic baby food. 

Alan Newman Research 4
LOGO EVALUATION

Logo Evaluation Process

Participants were presented with five alternative DfE logos, one at a time. The logos 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 presented and discussed was rotated from 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 

evaluated, 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 first 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 order 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.

 The current DfE logo, to get a brief response to this logo and a quick comparison to the five 

logos they had been evaluating. 

Alan Newman Research 5
Logo Design Elements

Across logos, the key images were easily recognizable and communicated safety concepts 

effectively, particularly when these elements were presented together. 

 The images of the house and people communicated that a product would be safer for people, 

families, and for household use.

 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 particular) by most 

participants and as the world/globe by a few. While it was not perceived negatively, once 

participants 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 that 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 misinterpreted 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 attracted attention and communicated that the 

logo is related 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 seen as an important feature that visually organizes the logo and, 

for some, 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 participants. This was particularly true of participants who imagined the logo 

shrunk to fit a small product label.

Alan Newman Research 6
Logo Terminology

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

The Safer Choice headline was both visually compelling and a strong messaging element. 

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 underlying copy in each logo sufficiently conveyed its purpose, 

and/or questioned the ambiguity of the phrase. 

The use of the term safer (i.e., safer choice, safer ingredient, safer product standard) was 

usually accepted – but did elicit some resistance. Some found safer to be vague and 

wondered, “Safer than 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, for a few, the term 

safer seemed 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 that the product meets government standards developed by a recognizable, 

credible environmental 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 logo 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 terminology include the following:

 Criteria and standard. Most participants preferred criteria over standard. Criteria was clear 

to participants and there was not significant pushback/negative response to its use. In

contrast, across groups, a few participants 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 criteria. 

• 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 few 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 chemistry was somewhat polarizing across groups. 

Some felt it was distracting or negatively associated it with harmful chemicals, chemical 

reactions, and/or unpleasant memories of chemistry class. In contrast, a number of 

participants were comfortable with the term chemistry and thought that 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, there 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 

negative. While recognizing 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 packaging. Moreover, they felt 

that the precise meaning of fragrance free in this usage - “fragrance free without the use of a 

masking agent” – while important, is much too complicated to communicate with the fragrance 

free banner.

Alan Newman Research 8
Logo Preferences

Logo preferences 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 9
Logo 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 meaning as described in the DfE 

program description (i.e., When you see the DfE label on a product, it means the DfE 

scientific review team has screened each ingredient for potential human health and 

environmental effects and that the product contains only the safest chemical ingredients 

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

Logos Q and P were nearly tied 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 groups. 

Differences in preferences and evaluation by segment are noted as appropriate. 

LOGOS

 This was the most frequently preferred logo among Leaning Green Consumers and was

moderately appealing among General Consumers.

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

following:

• The multi-colored, bold headline – Safer Choice – was both eye-catching and 

communicated a compelling benefit.

• The word chemistry was seen as positive and accurately descriptive of the program.

It suggested 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 10
which they related to chemistry. However, the word was not without detractors, as 

described below.

• The border was perceived as visually organizing the logo and making it seem like a 

stamp of approval.

• The green bottom with white lettering also helped with visual organization - it creates a 

“base” for the logo.

• The leaves/people/house graphic was visually appealing, and conveyed “safer for family, 

children, household use, and the environment.” 

• Green leaves especially communicated environmental safety.

 Negatives identified regarding this logo included the following:

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

• The word chemistry was distracting or quite negative for some. Some found it odd and/or 

thought it should be replaced with chemical. Others felt it had an intimidating tone 

because it reminded them of high school chemistry class and/or dangerous chemicals 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 did – e.g., wording, use of big 

noticeable words/headlines.

 Positive aspects of Logo P were identified as follows: 

• The particularly heavy border made the logo appear definite, “more official” and “like a 

stamp.”

• Safer product was an appealing general term for a few, because it was consumer-friendly 

and not as specific as ingredient or chemistry.

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

• The inclusion of the URL was positive. 

 Negatives mentioned by a few included the following:

• 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 “too many words.” 

• The URL was seen as too small. 

LOGO R

 Logo R was the second most frequently preferred logo among Leaning Green consumers, and 

moderately appealing to General Consumers.

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

ingredient. Ingredient conveyed, positively, that individual ingredients in the product had 

been examined for their safety. 

 The leaves/people/house graphic was again appealing – some liked 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 the lack of a border and the lack of visual 

organization (i.e., everything is about the same size, there is no green “base” to anchor it as

in Logos S and Q).

Alan Newman Research 12
LOGO 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 of Logo Q, including the following:

• It includes the Safer Choice headline. 

• The words are large and bold.

• It included the fewest words – e.g., brevity of Meets US EPA Criteria appealed to some.

• A border is present.

• There is a perceived emphasis on the people (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 make it 

less compelling for some. 

Alan Newman Research 13
LOGO 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 “bland.” 

 In particular, the leaves lacked a green color, which was an important way to communicate 

environmental safety for many. 

 The lack of house image was also a negative.

 As mentioned previously, the word standard elicited some negative response. For some, the 

singular form seemed odd (they assumed there would be multiple EPA standards 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 products 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, fragrance free was an important concept across groups, 

perhaps more with Leaning Green consumers (and particularly those with family members 

suffering from allergies).

 A number were negative about including it on the logo because 1) it would likely already be 

placed on the 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 information 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 

fragrances are also not in the product. 

 A few in the Leaning Green groups 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 participants 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 briefly evaluated the current DfE logo, 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 participants. 

CURRENT DfE LOGO

Alan Newman Research 15
 The General Consumer group in Chicago was quite negative about this logo – they thought it 

looked amateurish. In other groups, participants were more neutral to positive. However, 

only a very few said they would substitute 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 felt

it should be an image of the United States instead. 

 On the household product, a few in Los 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 statement. 

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

Participants briefly discussed 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 

partnership 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 for potential human health 

and environmental effects and that the product contains only the safest chemical ingredients 

available.

Overall Responses to DfE Program

In 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 products, such as 

household cleaners and laundry detergents. 

 Participants were asked which was more important to them – that a product is safer for 

people or that it protects the environment. Some participants refused to select one and said

that both were important. However, the majority of participants ultimately said safer for 

people was the most important and compelling. 

Alan Newman Research 17
COMMUNICATION 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: 

 Printed materials in stores – in shelf displays, signage, product hang tags, etc. (this was most 

important across groups). 

 A web 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). 

 Mention on CNN and other news programs.

 Dr. Oz. 

 Communications from product manufacturers, including coupons for logo-bearing products.

Alan Newman Research 18
CONCLUSIONS

The certification seal concept was familiar to all participants. Many at least noticed seals

when shopping, and 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. In 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 participants 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. 

The five logos that were tested communicated 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 suggests that the final logo will be meaningful to consumers even if 

they lack a detailed understanding of the DfE program. 

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

program. Logos did evoke questions about the DfE’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 chemistry 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 criticism of it (i.e., too small,

hard to read, would not use).

Recognizing and purchasing fragrance free products were important to a small but 

noticeable 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 story” to be 

communicated effectively by the Fragrance Free banner. 

Alan Newman Research 20