FINAL REPORT
INVESTIGATION of METHODS of INFORMING & MOTIVATING CHANGE in a
PORTION OF THE PRINTING INDUSTRY: A FOCUS GROUP STUDY OF
LITHOGRAPHERS AND SCREEN PRINTERS
Prepared for:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
April 1993
REVISED
March, June 1996
By
The'Center for Business and Environmental Studies, California State University, Hayward
With the assistance of:
The Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachusetts, Lowell.
Center for Industrial Services, University of Tennessee, Nashville.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 1
INTRODUCTION 1
PART I: RESULTS OF THE STUDY 5
A. Findings: All Respondents 5
• Background Information 6
• Current Information-Gathering Process 7
• Current Industry Practice 9
• Motivating Change in the Printing Industry 10
B. Results of the Focus Groups 11
C. General Comments 16
• Profile of Participants 18
• Targeted Outreach . 19
D. Some Conclusions and Suggestions 20
PART H: METHODOLOGY 23
A. Research Questions 23
B. Research Technique: convergent methodologies 24
• The Focus Group Method 24
• Use of Questionnaires 26
• Pre-test of Questionnaires 26
• Supplemental Telephone Interviews 26
C. Sample Selection Criteria 27
D. Outreach to Printing Industry Sample 28
n
-------
California State University, Hayward Final Report
Center for Business & Environmental Studies US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
APPENDICES:
A. ALL SAMPLE: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
B. LITHOGRAPHERS: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
C. SCREEN PRINTERS: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
D. FOCUS GROUP SCHEDULE
E. RESEARCH PROTOCOL
F SCREENING DEVICE
G. SAMPLE OF THE INVITATION LETTER
H. PROTOCOL FOR PROPOSED RESEARCH DESIGN FOR POLLUTION
PREVENTION TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER TO THE PRINTING INDUSTRY,
ADD-ON TO GRANT #X - 820802 - 01
H
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study team is indebted to many individuals and organizations without whose
assistance and patience this study would not have been completed. The Center for
Business and Environmental Studies is grateful to the members of the research team,
Patrick Demers and Ann Basanese of the University of Massachusetts, Lowell and
George Smelcer and Rich Jendrucko of the University of Tennessee at Nashville. Their
patience, hard work and insightful comments were invaluable to the CBES team
throughout the short time frame available for the research.
The study could not have progressed without the co-operation of all the printers in our
sample. We especially thank those printers who were motivated to take time from their
busy schedules to attend our focus groups. We also thank those who were unable to
attend a focus group but who returned questionnaires and shared valuable insights on
conditions in their industry.
A special thank you is owed to the tireless efforts of the Screen Printers Association
International (SPAI) and to the Printing Industries of America (PIA). The dedication of
Marci Kinter and her staff and Tom Purcell to the Design for the Environment project
enabled us to bring together a diverse group of printers for focus groups in a way that
would not have been possible by ourselves. We are also grateful for the support of the
regional affiliates of PIA in the areas where focus groups were organized. Their efforts
on the study team's behalf enabled a high level of discussion to take place and generated
enthusiasm for the project.
The study team would also like to thank the EPA for sponsoring this research in the area
of government - industry participation. We are grateful to the OPPT staff for their input
and for being accessible to our researchers throughout this study.
Professor Sam Doctors
Principal Investigator
Director, CBES
Josephine McCormick
Project Manager
Senior Associate, CBES
i
-------
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This report presents the results of a research study commissioned by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT). The study team was led by the Center for Business and Environmental Studies
(CBES) at California State University, Hayward and included the Toxics Use Reduction
Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell and the Center for Industrial Services
at the University of Tennessee, Nashville.
INTRODUCTION
EPA initiated the Design for the Environment (DfE) program to promote the use of
environmentally sound technologies and products in manufacturing. Through this
program, EPA formed the Design for the Environment Printing Project, in partnership
with printing industry trade associations, printers and suppliers, as an important first step
in developing an overall strategy for pollution prevention. This partnership will determine
the most effective channels for reaching printing audiences with messages regarding the
'how to' of pollution prevention.
A study team led by the Center for Business and Environmental Studies (CBES),
California State University, Hayward including the University of Massachusetts, Lowell
and the University of Tennessee, Nashville, was commissioned under a research grant
from EPA's OPPT to design research protocols and to implement a research project using
these protocols. The major purpose of this study was to assess the most effective
methods of motivating the printing industry to use less polluting and hazardous chemicals
in the blanket washing and screen reclamation processes. As a first step in the multi-
phase study, focus groups with Lithographers and Screen Printers were the identified
means of gathering an initial data set. This report sets out the nature and results of this
first phase of this study, i.e., the focus group phase.
The scope of work for this first phase of the Printing Industry Study required the study
team to:
1. Develop several versions of a research protocol, finally settling on a modified focus
group design with a structured questionnaire;
1
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
2. Organize focus groups in nine metropolitan areas in the United States (these nine
areas contain more than 50% of all lithographers and screen printers). However, it is
not asserted that the focus group sample chosen was necessarily representative of
these two segments of the printing industry. This selection process for the
lithographic and screen printing sectors of the printing industry was conducted
between December, 1992 and February, 1993;
3. Conduct and analyze the results from the focus groups, two each held in Boston,
Chicago, Edison, N J (N. Y. Metropolitan Area), Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis,
Nashville, New Orleans, and San Francisco;
4. Develop a questionnaire for each industry segment, lithographers and screen
printers, to guide the focus group discussion and incorporate questions on current
practices provided by University of Tennessee, University of Massachusetts and the
OPPT;
5. Analyze results of the responses to the questionnaires from the focus group
attendees and analyze the output from the focus group discussions; and,
6. Provide a report to OPPT summarizing the results of the research and implications
for the DfE communication strategy.
The above scope of work was developed to meet the communication and outreach goals
of the DfE printing project which are to:
1. Develop information products to be used with the identified printing industry
segments;
2. Devise a communications strategy for disseminating information on substitute
chemicals and processes to the printing industry segments;
3. Collect information on current practices in the printing industry; and
4. Understand how to motivate long-term behavioral change in the industry, i.e., the
effective transfer and wide spread use of pollution prevention technologies.
2
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
Reporting Schedule
This report presents the final results of the focus group discussions and an analysis of the
eighty (80) questionnaires that were returned. Progress reports were previously
submitted to OPPT on February 11 and March 2, 1993. A draft final report was
presented to OPPT on March 6, 1993 and to the DfE Printing Industry Work group
meeting of printers, trade associations, suppliers and EPA in Washington, D. C. on March
10 and 11,1993.
This final report incorporates the comments received on the draft final report at the
March 12 meeting with OPPT and the study team researchers. The report also includes
the findings from the remaining questionnaires received by CBES since submission of the
draft final report and subsequent comments of OPPT personnel in 1996.
Structure of the Report
Part I provides a summary of the results of the analysis of the questionnaires submitted
by lithographers and screen printers from the sample population. The highlights of our
findings from the focus groups are provided as qualitative anecdotal input to the project.
Finally, some conclusions and suggestions are presented.
Part II discusses the methodology adopted — a combination of group discussions, closed
ended questions, and telephone interviews, to survey the two sectors of the printing
industry. This section provides the reader with a context in which to view the analytical
results from Part I.
The appendices provide a summary of the questionnaire results, focus group schedule,
research protocol, screening device and a sample copy of the focus group invitation letter.
3
-------
California State University, Hayward Final Report
Center for Business & Environmental Studies US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
PARTI: RESULTS OF THE STUDY
This section presents the findings of the two-tier approach adopted by the research team:
an analysis of responses to the questionnaires sent to each potential participant in the
lithographic and screen printing samples, and the output from the focus group discussions
held in each of eight cities across the U. S. (The Miami Metropolitan Area was deleted
from the focus group sample of Metropolitan Areas because of a lack local interest and
participation.)
The method for identifying potential participants and the rationale for the "dual"
technique chosen are detailed in Part II of this report. Each approach—use of
questionnaires and the focus group technique—is strong and valid in its own right and
reinforces the study team's efforts to gather information to inform the DfE printing
project within the scope of work for this research.
Approximately 400 questionnaires were sent to random samples of Lithographers and
Screen Printers. The findings below represent a summary of responses from the 80
questionnaires returned to the study team. This represents a 20% response rate.
The random sample of lithographers was selected from the Dun and Bradstreet database
of establishments by specifying Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 2752
(Commercial Printing, Lithographic) and 2759 (Commercial Printing, not elsewhere
classified) and a geographic area centered on each of the cities chosen for study. Owing
to the difficulties of specifying a discrete SIC code for screen printers, the sample of
screen printers was selected at random from lists generated by the Screen Printers
Association International (SPAI). Details of the sample selection criteria are reported in
Part II of this report.
A. FINDINGS—ALL RESPONDENTS
For a complete tabulation of responses by the 80 respondents in the sample please refer to
Appendix A of this report. The information below is organized as highlights of the
findings from the four main areas of inquiry in the questionnaire.
4
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Main Business Activity:
86% of the sample said that more than half of their business was in Lithography or
Screen Printing; the remaining 14% were split between flexography, letterpress and
electronic print. The printing industry is not categorized easily into one business segment
or the other; therefore, some respondents indicated that they were in more than one of the
five main printing industries specified. For example, of the 46 lithographers who
completed questionnaires, 14 (30%) also had flexographic and/or letterpress operations in
their shop.
Employment and Market Conditions
One of the criteria for the study was that the sample be restricted to companies with
between 1 and 200 employees. Of the 71 companies who responded to this question, 2
had over 200 employees on-site. The sample covered both small and medium size
employers, ensuring the inclusion of views of all segments of employee sizes. As an
example, over half (53%) of respondents reported that they had fewer than 15 employees,
while 43% employed between 16 and 200 people.
Companies are naturally reluctant to give financial information, particularly in writing or
over the telephone, hence it was to be expected that fewer companies would respond
accurately to questions on sales and market prospects. In fact, 70% of those surveyed
gave some sales information and 74% were willing to share information about whether
they forecast the market to increase, decrease or stay about the same in the next 5 years.
Of those who responded, 43% had annual sales greater than $1.5 million, 55% had annual
sales between $100,000 and $500,000 and only 2% of the sample (1 company) reported
annual sales of less than $100,000.
SECTION 2: CURRENT INFORMATION GATHERING PROCESSES
Interviewees were asked to record how useful different sources of information were to
them for (a) general business and purchasing information, (b) information on chemical,
technology and other process improvements, and (c) health and environmental risks. A
5
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
choice of 10 potential sources of information were provided to respondents with room to
record additional sources in the "other" category.
General Business Information Sources
Trade journals, suppliers and industry associations were the sources most often cited as
"useful" or "very useful." With a high incidence of multiple responses to these questions,
no one source was cited as the single most useful. As an indicator of how often the above
sources were cited, "suppliers" were named most often as "very useful" by 58% of the
companies; 55% of respondents considered trade journals "very useful" and trade
associations or industry associations were considered "very useful" by 46% of
respondents. By contrast, of the sources considered "not useful," federal government
sponsored programs and university extension programs were the most often cited.
Information on Alternative Chemicals. Technologies and Other Process Improvements
Respondents again stressed that they relied on information from suppliers when the
question shifted to alternative chemicals and processes. However, there was a slight shift
away from industry associations as a "useful" or "very useful" source. There was a slight
increase in the number of times university extension programs were mentioned as
"useful" to 29% of respondents compared to only 20% in the previous question.
Information on Health and Environmental Risks.
Responses to the question about information on health and environmental risks were less
polarized. There was a shift in the usefulness of state supported technical assistance, with
20% of respondents considering this source as "very useful" for information about health
and environmental risks. Over half of the sample considered this a "useful" or "very
useful" source of this type of information. Support for suppliers was less strong in this
category, with 20% (14) companies citing suppliers as "not useful" whereas before, only
3 or 4 companies had considered suppliers as "not useful." However, suppliers were still
considered a "very useful" source by almost half of the respondents. Informal networks,
i.e. word of mouth concerning health and environmental risks, accounted for over two
thirds (72%) of responses in the "useful" or "very useful" categories, whereas in the
previous questions, this source was only considered "useful" or "very useful" by 68% of
respondents.
6
-------
California State University, Hay-ward Final Report
Center for Business & Environmental Studies US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
Summary
Consistently across the range of questions concerning information sources, federal
government programs, state technical assistance and university extension programs were
considered the least useful sources of information, followed closely by "consultants."
Those sources considered most often as "very useful" for all three questions above were
industry trade associations, suppliers and trade journals.
A specific breakdown of the names of trade journals and responses in the "other"
category is provided in the "Summary of Tabulations" in Appendix A.
Best Methods of Transmitting Information
Respondents stated that presentations at industry conferences and inserts in trade
publications are among the most useful ways of obtaining information on health and
environmental risks in the printing industry. Among the ways most often cited by the
sample of respondents as "not useful" are video-conferencing and government-sponsored
conferences. When asked which sources of information had most credibility in reaching
the printing industry with information, 59% of the sample said that "industry
associations" had the most credibility, while 22% of those surveyed said that suppliers
had the most credibility.
Divergence with Focus Group Discussions.
On the issue of video-conferencing as a means of transmitting information, it is worth
noting that the focus group participants were less hostile in their interest for this method.
Generally, once the concept was explained in group discussions, participants could recall
having participated in a video-conference sponsored by their local trade association or
sponsored by a local university extension program. Hence, the response in the
questionnaires differs from those observed during the focus group discussions.
There were also some regional differences observed. For example, the Minneapolis,
Nashville and Los Angeles groups said that they may be interested in teleconferencing or
watching a training video if it could be made interactive for use on the shop-floor.
Details on the output from the focus groups are contained in the next section of this
report.
7
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
Participation in Training/Awareness of DfE Program
86% of the sample said they would participate in regularly scheduled training or on-site
technical assistance as a means of getting information on health and environmental risks.
The issue of how frequently was not addressed in the questionnaire. However, in the
focus groups, participants suggested that once or perhaps twice a year would be a good
frequency.
Only one company had heard of the Design for the Environment initiative prior to the
study team informing them of the research project. This company had heard about DfE
through the Screen Printers Association International.
SECTION 3: CURRENT INDUSTRY PRACTICE
Each sample—lithographers and screen printers— was asked questions specific to their
industry. In the case of lithographers, questions were focused on blanket washes and for
screen printers, the focus was on screen reclamation chemicals. These were the two
priority areas identified by printing industry representatives in their work group meeting
of July 14,1992 as priority areas for environmental concern.
Appendices B and C contain summaries of responses to the questions on current industry
practices by the lithographers and screen printers sample respectively. In many instances,
responses to the questions could not be easily categorized for analysis and tabulated:
where this is the case, responses and comments are listed on the summary questionnaires.
SECTION 4: MOTIVATING CHANGE IN THE PRINTING INDUSTRY
The issue of how to motivate change behavior in an industry is a complex one involving
many psychological, sociological and economic factors. The first step in any move to
change behavior is awareness of the issue. This may then be translated into a stimulus to
change behavior through education and demonstration of tangible benefits such change
could bring to participants. From the previous sections of the questionnaire, we know
that awareness of the existence of the DfE project is very low and this fact should be
borne in mind as the results are analyzed.
In this section of the questionnaire, the sample was asked if they would be interested in
signing up with the EPA to voluntarily switch to lower risk alternative products. Only 8
8
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
% of respondents said they would not sign up, while the rest were evenly split in their
response between "Yes" (46%) and "Don't Know" (46%). The usefulness of responses
to this question is limited to the extent that the question itself oversimplifies the issue.
What would be needed to motivate businesses in a fragmented, competitive environment
to do anything other than what they are currently doing requires some kind of scenario
testing. Nonetheless, what was illuminating was that none of the companies who
responded said that they wanted EPA to sponsor this event alone, while 81% said that a
program like this should be organized jointly by the trade associations and EPA.
Less than one-third of the sample offered examples of the kinds of incentives that could
be offered to encourage the industry to participate in such a program. However, of those
who did, 57% suggested establishing an information exchange, and awarding certificates
for environmental achievement.
During focus group discussions, participants elaborated on these points by suggesting
specific incentives which could include establishing a clearinghouse or "one-stop-shop"
for environmental risk information, guaranteeing a moratorium on inspections by EPA or
State officials for two years and providing discounted insurance rates for compliance with
State or Federal pollution prevention regulations.
Concern for human health was considered by those responding to the questionnaires as
the "most important" factor motivating participants to join a voluntary sign-up program
to reduce health and environmental risks in the workplace.
Marketing considerations about environmental concerns were most often cited as "not
important" in deciding whether or not to sign up for any such programs. One reason for
this apparent lack of interest in the competitive advantage from "greenness" given by
focus group participants was that they usually do not sell directly to consumers.
Over one-quarter of the sample said that avoidance of regulation was not important in
deciding whether to participate in such sign-up programs.
9
-------
California State University, Hayward Final Report
Center for Business & Environmental Studies US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
B. RESULTS OF THE FOCUS GROUPS
A series of focus groups was held with lithographers and screen printers invited from the
random sample in eight cities across the US.
The locations for the focus groups were: Chicago, New Orleans, Minneapolis, Edison,
New Jersey (New York Metropolitan Area), Boston, Nashville, Hayward, California (San
Francisco Bay Area), and Los Angeles. The last of these was held on February 24, 1993.
A focus group was scheduled in Miami, but, due to scheduling difficulties and competing
pollution prevention events in Miami, the focus group was canceled and replaced by
telephone interviews with lithographers and screen printers in the area.
The first of these meetings was held in Chicago on December 18,1992 as a pre-test of the
questionnaire and to test the approach adopted by the research team. The Chicago group
was randomly selected. "Cold" calls were made to the sample by CBES with no prior
introduction by any of the trade associations active in the DfE printing industry project.
This approach was modified for subsequent focus groups to first seek the support and
endorsement of not only the national trade associations but their local chapters before the
study team initiated contact with printers in a given area.
Results have been drawn from the transcripts of the court reporters who were present at
the meetings and from the collective notes of the study team. These have been structured
into the same four categories used to guide the discussion. These four areas also provide
some uniformity for the analysis of what is essentially a subjective and qualitative data
set.
I. WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION GETS YOUR ATTENTION?
Common to all groups was the sense that suppliers have been overlooked as a source of
influence on the industry. Even when it was pointed out that suppliers are included in the
DfE program's outreach, the printers were quick to converge on this issue as a point that
appears to have been overlooked.
Two groups (Chicago and Nashville) felt that there was not enough information on the
risks associated with particular products. For example, all of the printers make frequent
use of the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) as the prime source of technical
10
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
specifications on new chemicals. There was a general feeling that this MSDS
information needs to be supplemented with specific examples for use of a new chemical.
The Chicago group felt that while the MSDS were useful, they stop short of showing
what happens when this product/chemical is incorporated into a particular system. This
shortcoming could be overcome by demonstration projects for particular products in
specific production setting. Other groups reiterated this point and felt that while all of the
necessary information was available, it needed to be re-formatted in a regular, short
newsletter form.
Specific suggestions to meet the perceived gap in information included developing a one-
page newsletter, showing where a product had been beta-tested and on what system(s).
Another information gap filler, legal issues notwithstanding, would be a "consumer
reports" style matrix ranking products which make environmental claims. Enough
mention was made of video, as a non-threatening site visit, to merit further consideration
by the DfE program as an information vehicle. It is unclear, however, whether the
information that will be made available on substitute chemicals lends itself to an
interactive video format.
A broader issue still to be addressed before developing any further information products
is whether there is indeed any gap in the current information. The study team's research
suggests that there is a plethora of information but that many packaging and marketing
gaps need to be filled
Whatever the medium chosen, the message from all groups is clear: they trust their local
"Craftsman's Club," local affiliates of the Printing Industries of America (PIA), and the
SPAI as relevant sources of information. The National Association of Printers and
Lithographers (NAPL) and National Association of Quick Printers (NAQP) are also
considered sources of unbiased information. Any information with an EPA endorsement
or that emanates from EPA is likely to be less effective in transmitting information than if
that same document bears the endorsement of local trade associations. As one observer
put it:
"Anything with EPA on the envelope will certainly get my attention. I'll open it but /
smell costs to my business and so, it's off to the circular file..."
11
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
H. WHERE DOES YOUR INDUSTRY CURRENTLY OBTAIN INFORMATION?
Participants in the group discussions made no distinction between where they obtain
general business information and environmental information. The groups appeared to be
unanimous in their dependence on suppliers. When the issue of inherent bias in the
suppliers' approach arose or was suggested by facilitators, differences in attitudes
regarding the reliability of suppliers for new products did emerge among participants in
each group. In this regard, the focus group approach is a particularly useful tool. The
group dynamic allowed the participants, who usually knew one another, to learn that the
same supplier had been promoting various products with vastly differing claims to each
of them. The participants also learned from each other and brought the group into
agreement as to why they perhaps trusted, for example, the Craftsman's Club, local PIA
affiliates, NAQP or NAPL. Similar comments were made by screen printers regarding
the opportunity to use suppliers as a vehicle for information on new products. As a
group, they seem more diverse than lithographers in terms of the range of products,
substrates and processes used, printing on a wide variety of media, from steel to walnuts
for example. In the case of screen printers, several mentions were made of Graphic Arts
Monthly and Screen Printing News as sources of current information as well as suppliers.
m. WHAT IS CURRENT PRACTICE IN YOUR INDUSTRY CONCERNING
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
During this part of the discussion, participants were reminded to fill in the specific
questions that related to current practices in their plant. Most value was added to the
discussion by having the group collectively think back to events which prompted them to
try alternative products which made environmentally beneficial claims. Cost
considerations were cited at first as an important reason to try new products. However,
once the discussion moved to broader issues of health and environmental risks, risks to
human health were often cited as the primary reason to investigate new approaches or
products.
The discussions often centered on the whole premise for the study and a general critique
as to why the study was focusing on particular chemicals. Printers constantly referred to
the need to approach the issue as an "integrated system" of inks, dyes, substrates and
equipment configurations rather than as one process at a time. Lithographers consistently
stated that they believe blanket wash is not much of a pollutant since, as one participant
12
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
put it, if they use rags, "most of the wash evaporates before it hits the trash can." Each
time these types of concerns were raised, the facilitators explained the rationale for the
use clusters but could not lay the discussion to rest.
In the case of screen printers, the current practices section seemed to hit a redundant note
even faster than with the lithographers. Participants would oblige by talking about
reclamation chemicals but would quickly turn to disbelief that EPA would target
reclamation chemicals without examining the particular system under which these
chemicals were used.
Very few of the printers felt that the EPA was "on the same page" as far as technological
improvements were concerned and reiterated the need to view information as specific to
the particular substrate in use. Because the perception that the DfE program was out of
step with what is happening on the shop floor was so prevalent among the participants, it
is worth examining what may account for this view. It is particularly so, considering the
DfE program developed these use clusters and the sections of the questionnaire about
current practices in close co-operation with groups of printers and their respective trade
associations. Choice of these processes to target is based on national data; however,
national norms and practices seem to have little relevance to individual small printers.
This matter, choice of processes to target, should be viewed as a marketing and
communication problem before it is considered a technology transfer opportunity. The
targeted firms do not feel the need to change if they have a tried and tested process or
product which helps them stay in compliance with local and state regulations.
IV. WHAT WOULD MOTIVATE YOUR COMPANY TO SIGN UP IN A
VOLUNTARY PROGRAM TO REDUCE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RISKS?
Interest in participating in anything which takes a press person away from his or her job
appears to be low, particularly for companies which are fearful of appearing on any lists
to which any government agency may have access. Many of the comments made in
response to this section of the discussion were very pointedly anti-EPA and also critical
of local agencies such as Southern California's Air Quality Management District. That
13
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
being so, it is precisely these local agencies who are most often visible in the printing
plant and of whose regulations the printers are most keenly aware.
No matter who the government regulator is at the plant level, EPA appears to be the
scapegoat for printers' complaints regarding government interference. To stimulate
discussion and extract the most positive information possible, the facilitators probed for
"under what circumstances" and "what kinds of incentives" could EPA offer to
encourage participation. If an information "seminar" were co-sponsored by the trade
group in the area, the local affiliate, if possible, and targeted at both the people on the
shop floor as well as management, then some printers would likely attend.
The experience of trying to get printers to attend these focus groups is evidence of how
unlikely small printers are as a group to attend seminars, unless a tangible benefit, such as
product demonstrations, with an assurance that no EPA personnel would be involved is
given. The role of the outside independent consultant, for example a company who
conducts environmental audits and can suggest improvements to the system should be
explored further. Consultants familiar with the printing industry were mentioned at least
once in every group as a possible unbiased and non-intrusive information vehicle. This
group result is quite different from that found on the questionnaires.
C. GENERAL COMMENTS
The study team has reviewed all of the transcripts for the focus groups and the notes of
the group meetings held in Los Angeles and in the San Francisco Bay Area. While there
appeared to be more open discussions in the focus groups in California and Minneapolis,
it is premature to generalize from such a small sample and such open-ended discussions
regarding receptivity to new programs. Reviewing the volumes of information and
opinions from the transcripts does allow a subjective comparison of the recurrent themes.
These include the following findings. Except for differences in technology employed by
these two segments of the industry, there was little difference in the responses to most
common parts of the questionnaires.
Groundwork done bv Local Trade Groups
The lithographers and screen printers who took the trouble to attend these discussions felt
they were already an "enlightened" group environmentally and referred repeatedly to the
groundwork already laid by the local trade associations or local regulators.
14
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
In Minneapolis, the group made repeated reference to the trust they placed in PIM
(Printing Industries of Minnesota). This group, more than any other, saw a need for a
forum for exchange of information rather than "more fact sheets and manuals."
Specific Information Vehicles: differences among groups on use of Video and role for
Local Regulatory Agencies.
Video and teleconferencing were well received in the Minneapolis group, whereas other
groups were more skeptical of the concept and felt that they would not have time to
watch a video. The Los Angeles group was even more specific in its suggestions and
indicated a need for a process-specific demonstration or interactive video format which is
geared to press operators. This group shared the criticisms expressed at the Chicago
group of the distance from the issues shown by the national trade associations. However,
the printers attending the Los Angeles focus group indicated that the Printing Industries
Association of Southern California, which acts as a "clearinghouse" for information,
presents it in a short, easy to read manner. Much was made in both the Southern and
Northern California meetings of the need to remember that EPA is largely an invisible
agency for printers; the California printers are regulated by over 23 state agencies and see
the representatives of the Air Quality Management District more often than they do the
EPA, as state regulations in California are stricter than federal regulations.
Local regulatory agencies are potentially a powerful communication point for printers in
more heavily regulated states such as California or Minnesota.
Need to Better Understand Role for Local Affiliates of Trade Associations
A recurrent theme echoed in the questionnaire responses was the strong connection each
group felt to their local trade associations. However, limited emphasis should be placed
on the trade association as a generic group for communication until the study team better
understands exactly which groups and at what level of communication the groups should
be involved. For example, in the Chicago and New Orleans focus groups, only one or
two people were members of their trade association and yet they were almost unanimous
in citing trade groups as a source of information they would trust.
Traditionally, trade associations represent a very low percentage of the industry. In one
focus group, participants were asked how many of them attend local meetings of their
15
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
trade association. They reported that only 40 people attended a recent NAQP meeting
representing approximately 10% of the membership in the area. A reasonable estimate of
attendance at national meetings is 1% of membership.
The issue of how to reach the vast majority of companies who will not attend meetings,
although the focus group attendees place much store by the local trade groups, should be
addressed in the marketing communications channels ultimately adopted by EPA.
Profile of Participants
Participants at focus groups tend to be the most motivated group from the population
under consideration. Usually, those who agreed to participate have a common interest in
attending or some unifying features as part of a carefully targeted population. On the
face of it, our sample had their industry group in common, i.e. they were all either
lithographers or screen printers. However, the overall group tended, in fact, to be very
diverse in terms of the products they made, particularly true for screen printers, and the
medium on which the image was printed. There was also very little to offer these people
in terms of tangible benefit and that which could be offered was the chance to participate
in a government program. The fact that the DfE printing project is co-sponsored by and
has the full involvement of trade groups at the national level was not important to those
printers who were contacted.
In the course of this study the team made calls to lists of approximately 100 randomly
selected printers. Each printer was contacted by telephone at least three times for each of
the 16 focus groups. Two focus groups were held each day; one in the morning with
lithographers and later in the afternoon or evening with screen printers. On advice from
local trade groups and from printers themselves, this schedule was changed to
accommodate regional preferences for breakfast or evening meetings.
Follow up invitations and faxes were sent to potential participants with the questionnaires
in advance of the meeting. Telephone calls were made or faxes sent to remind companies
that a place had been reserved for them at the meeting one day before each focus group.
The best attended focus group had 8 participants. This is very much in line with the
experience of the study team in working with small businesses. Local trade association
contacts had similar experiences in trying to organize meetings with printers, especially
16
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
in a recession. Local contacts made in the course of the study included the Association of
the Graphic Arts in New York, Printing Industries of New England, PIA affiliates in
Northern and Southern California and in Minnesota.
Targeted Outreach
It was clear from all of the interactions the study team had with printers, sometimes being
on first name terms after three or four conversations regarding the meetings, that most of
the printers knew each other, were predominantly male, middle-aged and white. Given
the cultural diversity of the population in some of the cities chosen, it was surprising that
the random sample did not include more minority and women-owned businesses. In
recognition of this fact, it may be that a different outreach strategy to women-owned and
minority-owned printing businesses may be necessary. The sample was stratified in
order to capture the smaller, independently owned companies from the universe of some
60,000 printers in the US. It may be possible to conduct another search using a different
database to track progress among minority and women-owned businesses in
communicating pollution prevention information. It appears that these groups are often
excluded from the informal networks of information sharing.
Examine Potential to Target Key Opinion Leaders among Small Printers
The discussions were consistently informative and insightful. The attendees were
industry opinion leaders who were probably representative of a larger group than was
represented by their numbers at the meeting. As such, the small groups tended to be
made up of highly motivated people who could be part of an effective channel of
communication to their industry peers. This point was echoed in three focus groups, who
said that if EPA could target one or two industry leaders, then the informal network
commonly used by all small businesses could spread the word about the aims of the DfE
printing industry project through the industry.
D. SOME CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
1. It should be emphasized that this Phase I study did not necessarily include a
representative sample of the two industry groups, Lithographers and Screen Printers.
Also, the data were gathered at only one point in time with no baseline data available for
comparison. Thus firm conclusions based on this study should be avoided. What is
needed to validate, the findings of this study is a multi-phase study including an initial
baseline study so that it would be possible to measure changes in industry practice over a
17
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
reasonable period of time, say three to five years. A multi-year panel approach was
initially advocated by the CBES Group. An example of a possible research protocol for
such a study is appended as Appendix H.
2. A careful study of the financial implications of implementing any pollution prevention
changes in print shop processes/procedures is critical to understanding one important
potential barrier to change in an industry characterized by very small businesses. These
businesses may be also be characterized by limited access to capital. It will probably be
necessary to analyze ways to encourage greater private sector investment in pollution
prevention equipment and/or systems, equity and/or debt capital. This information could
be gathered as part of the representative panel study (or studies) recommended in (1)
above.
The network of EPA-sponsored Environmental Finance Centers (EFCs) could help in
gathering such financial data. The present network of six regional EFCs can provide an
important resource for gathering and analyzing small business financial data. They can
also be used as a resource in developing model private sector incentives for investment in
pollution prevention equipment and or systems.
3. Any method of disseminating pollution prevention information must take account of
local, state, and regional differences in business receptivity and motivation to use such
information. The regulatory environment of a particular city such as Minneapolis or
Hennipen County may play a critical role in business receptivity to pollution prevention
information and willingness to implement the technology embodied in the information.
Also, regional chapters of national trade associations seem to be much more effective in
transferring technology than their national counterparts.
4. Any pollution prevention information emanating from EPA is likely to be viewed with
great skepticism and it appears that in most areas of the US it is better to have local,
county, or state agencies be the source of such information or better yet local or regional
trade or professional groups.
5. Greater reliance on market forces needs to be used to effectuate transfer, thus EPA
needs to have carefully crafted analyses of not only the technical characteristics of any a
18
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
prevention technology they wish to transfer, but also of its likely financial impact on the
business and its market.
6. We believe this study and others like it can provide a starting point for developing the
tools needed to measure the effect(s) of any data dissemination and transfer programs.
7. It is important not to confuse "information dissemination" with "technology transfer."
The former concept is mainly a passive process and is generally only related to the first
step in the process of technology transfer, that of technology awareness. Technology
transfer, on the other hand, is a multi-step, action-oriented process that usually requires
the recipient (transferee) to take substantial financial and professional risks in
implementing some new area of technology. Most government "technology transfer"
programs are really information dissemination programs. (See CBES, Technology
Transfer Report, prepared for OPPT, May 30,1995 for a more detailed discussion of this
and related issues of technology transfer in the EPA OPPT context.)
If EPA wishes to go beyond the information dissemination, or awareness stage of
transfer, then a complex, multi-step program will need to be implemented and it will
entail some risk(s) for the Agency. EPA will necessarily be involved in the "market" in
ways that will expose the Agency to possible criticism. It is also likely that there will be
failures that must be recognized and data from these failures must be used to improve the
ongoing transfer program. However without an active Agency-involved and committed
program, it is unlikely that much pollution prevention technology transfer will occur.
19
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
PART H. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY
The choice of research techniques for this study was driven by three factors:
1. The need to establish a baseline for data on current practices in the printing
industry,
2. The desire on the part of the DfE printing project participants to solicit the
input of predominantly small printers in the lithographic and screen printing
sectors of the industry and,
3. The communication and outreach goals of the DfE printing project.
In addition, it was apparent in discussions and meetings with OPPT prior to submission
of a research design and protocol in September, 1992, that the study would be required to
conduct and report results within a very short time frame prescribed by the schedule of
briefings established by the DfE program. The research team devised a cost-effective
strategy combining research methods to address the research questions in a timely
manner for the 5-month time frame for the study.
A. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The Research Questions which drive the analysis are grouped into four categories:
1. How does the industry currently gather information to inform business
decisions?
2. Which sources of information does the industry trust?
3. What are current practices in the industry concerning use of products and
processes which are less harmful to human health and the environment?
4. What factors motivate behavior change in the industry?
20
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
B. RESEARCH TECHNIQUE: CONVERGENT METHODOLOGIES
The study team developed a research protocol submitted to OPPT in September, 1992.
See Appendix E, "Research Protocol" for details of the initial research design. This
protocol outlines the initial framework for the study proposed by CBES. The approach
was subsequently revised to incorporate the pre-test at the first focus group.
The approach subsequently adopted by the study team involved using a combination of
techniques to allow cost-effective and verifiable data collection. This is often referred to
as "convergent methodologies" or "triangulation" on a common issue in the scope of
work. The three components of the methodology are: (1) administering a pre-tested
questionnaire to the sample, (2) conducting a focus group of invited participants using a
structured "question set" which broadly conforms to the questionnaire format, and (3)
supplemental telephone interviews with other companies in the sample who did not
participate in the group discussion.
Each of these methods is briefly described below, followed by the criteria for sample
selection and the process for contacting the sample:
The Focus Group Method
Focus groups have been popular with researchers who seek qualitative data. The purpose
of a focus group is not to answer questions but rather to provide insights which inform
programs or policy decisions about the potential outcome of a proposed series of actions
or program. For example, focus groups arc commonly used by market researchers before
a new product launch, to determine how a particular brand name affects a target audience.
The principal advantage of focus groups over other techniques (i.e. one-on-one
interviews, telephone surveys, mailed questionnaires) is that the responses of participants,
who are drawn together by some common characteristics pertinent to the goals of the
investigation, are affected by the dynamics of the group. Responses given in a one-on-
one setting rarely change throughout the course of the interview, whereas in a group of
their peers, participants often shift their attitudes once they hear a certain point of view
expressed. In this way, the non-directive nature of the focus group interview allows
individuals to respond without setting boundaries or providing clues for potential
response categories.
21
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
Contrast this approach with a principal limitation of the pre-determined questioning
common in a telephone or one-on-one interview. The accuracy of the results obtained
can be affected by the closed-ended nature of the interview due to legitimate concerns
over the excessive influence of the person conducting the interview and the limitations
imposed by the choice of responses available.
The principal disadvantage of focus groups is that due to the open-ended nature of the
discussion, it is difficult to infer information out of the context in which the discussion
took place. Another limitation is the nature of the social interaction itself. The groups
are comprised of people in a less controlled environment than in a personal interview
where the interviewer has control over the questions asked. In a focus group, the
discussion can veer off on a detour and requires a special set of skills on the part of the
moderator to keep the discussion on the topic.
In sum, focus groups are a strong, tested method of qualitative research. For the most
useful outcome, group discussions need to be kept "focused" on the goals of the study
and the issues of interest without leading or prompting the group in a pre-determined
manner. The goal is not to influence the outcome or overly confine the interpretation of
the results.
The study team adopted the focus group approach and, while recognizing the limitations
inherent in using questionnaires in conjunction with the group meeting, decided to
administer the questionnaire to the sample prior to their attendance at the focus group.
The team believes this "hybrid" approach strengthened the research and met the
expressed need of the OPPT staff to have hard data about current practices in the industry
without compromising the overall aim of the study to inform the DfE printing project as
to the most effective communication channel(s) to use with the printing industry.
Use of Questionnaires
Samples of the Questionnaire sent to lithographers and screen printers are included in
Appendices A, B and C.
Section 3.0 of the questionnaire on current practices in the industry was developed by
OPPT. The remaining sections, which were used as a discussion route during the focus
groups, were designed by the study team with input from OPPT staff.
22
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
Questionnaires were pre-tested with the Chicago focus group and a revised question set
developed for mailing to the sample of lithographers and screen printers selected for each
of the remaining focus groups.
Pre-test of Questionnaire
The pre-test of the questionnaire was the most important outcome from the Chicago focus
group. Comments raised during the meeting enabled the study team to see redundancies
and areas of confusion which could prejudice the results. The study team felt that
conducting the Chicago group was extremely useful and critical to refining the questions.
The old maxim of "the reader is always right" holds particularly true when the sample
being surveyed are practitioners in the industry. No matter how valid the researchers feel
the question may be, a valuable opportunity to solicit information is lost if the intent of a
question is not clear to the interviewee.
Supplemental Telephone Interviews
The third technique used by the study team to supplement the results was to conduct
telephone interviews with those companies who did not keep their appointment to turn up
at the focus group discussions. The study team recognized early in the process the
difficulty in getting people to these meetings. Therefore, we decided to augment the data
gathering activities by asking those who failed to attend the meetings to send in their
questionnaires or, to conduct a telephone interview to complete the questionnaire.
The study team recognizes that telephone interviews are a less rich source of information
than if the company's views were made in a discussion group format. However, each of
these techniques is valid in its own right. Combining the techniques strengthens the
results considerably and enables a larger number of respondents to participate in
providing input to shape the DfE printing project than if we had relied exclusively on
attendees at the focus groups as originally proposed in the research design. The
information concerning current practices in the industry was mentioned to the study team
as an area of particular importance to the DfE printing project and a wealth of
information on specific products and processes is provided in the questionnaires in
Appendix A, B and C.
23
-------
California State University, Hayward Final Report
Center for Business & Environmental Studies US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
C. SAMPLE SELECTION CRITERIA
The sample of lithographers was selected by specifying SIC codes 2752 (Commercial
Printing: lithography) and 2759 (Commercial Printing, not elsewhere classified) in the
Dun and Bradstreet database of establishments. Lists of lithographers for each focus
group location were dropped in a stratified random sample format. On an initial basis,
we concentrated on printers that had between 20-99 employees, representing more than
80% of the industry in terms of sales and employment. At the request of EPA the sample
frame was enlarged to include some of the smallest companies with between 1 and 19
employees.
The samples were expanded to more than 100 companies for each locale, each of whom
was contacted at least 3 times to solicit interest in attending the meetings.
The screen printers sample could not be selected in the same manner as the lithographers.
In consultation with the Screen Printers Association International (SPAI), the study team
developed lists of randomly selected screen printers from the SPAI database.
In many cases this proved to be an incomplete list: many of the sample were no longer in
business, were not screen printers or had no telephone numbers. In addition, the study
team had to supplement the lists of screen printers with other source books (The West
Coast Edition of the Graphic Arts Blue Book, Yellow Pages, and continued refinements
of the lists by SPAI at CBES request) to derive a larger pool of potential participants at
the meetings.
A screening device was used in initial telephone contact with the printers to verify that
the information was indeed correct and that the printer met the criteria for inclusion in the
study.
Appendix F includes a sample screening device used for the study.
The focus group locations were chosen based on the concentration of printers in the area
as described in the study prepared by OPPT "Use Cluster Analysis: Printing Industry."
The catchment area for each of the focus groups was specified as the Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) for each of the cities selected. In some cases,
24
-------
California State University, Hayward
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Final Report
US EPA Printing Industry Study
April, 1993, Revised March & June, 1996
printers objected to traveling to the selected site. This was particularly true in the Boston
and Los Angeles areas. For this reason, new samples were selected within closer travel
times to the meeting site.
D. OUTREACH TO THE PRINTING INDUSTRY SAMPLE
Initial contact was made by CBES to the first focus group in Chicago. Telephone calls
were made to over 100 companies in the lithographers sample and to over 50 companies
in the screen printers sample. Follow-up invitation letters (see Appendix F) were sent
informing the participants of the time, location and purpose of the meeting.
Based on this experience, the approach was revised in the hopes that personal contact
from the national trade associations would increase the attendance rate at these meetings.
Hence, for all the subsequent focus groups, initial contact was made by letter from the
Printing Industries of America (PIA) and SPAI to the random sample of companies
specified by the researchers. Follow-up calls were made by CBES to all of the samples
with the exception of the Nashville sample who were contacted by the researchers from
the University of Tennessee.
The outreach letters from the national trade associations had very little impact on the
actual attendance at the meetings. As this became apparent during the telephone calls to
companies, CBES made contact with each of the local affiliates of trade associations in
the area where the focus groups were to be held. While the local lithographers trade
associations were supportive of our efforts to recruit participants, they were in general
unaware of the initial letters sent. Even with the active support of the local trade
associations, turnout at the focus groups was low even when the local affiliate made calls
in support of the focus group, as in Southern California.
25
-------
-APPENDIX A.-
PRINTING INDUSTRY PROJECT
QUESTIONNAIRE
ALL RESPONDENTS @ MARCH 2,1993
Sample Size fn) = 80
RESPONDENTS TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE ARE GUARANTEED ANONYMITY. RESPONSES
WILL NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY IN REPORTS OR OTHER
WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OF THE RESULTS OF THIS RESEARCH.
RESPONDENT: PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THE
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS
YES 70 NO 2
Please note that the sums of columns of percentages in this appendix may not equal
100%, due to rounding.
-------
SECTION 1 -BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1 Approximately what percentage of your business is in the following segments?
(Please check die boxes that apply.)
n=80
<50%)
50-95%)
95-100%)
(a) Flexography
6 (7%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
(b) Letterpress
13 (16%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
(c) Screen Printing
7 (9%)
9 (11%)
20 (25%)
(d) Lithography
5 (6%)
16 (20%)
24 (30%)
(e) Electronic Print
11 (14%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
(f) Other. Please explain
1.2 How many staff do you employ? (Please write the numbers in the boxes provided below.)
At this location Company-wide
(a)
(b)
(c)
-------
Please indicate the average annual sales volume for your company in the last 3
years.
0-100,000 1 (2%)
100/001-500,000 14 (25%)
500,001-1,500,000 17 (30%)
1,500,001-5,000,000 14 (25%)
>5,000,000 10 (18%)
n=56 (70%)
Do you forecast sales to (increase, decrease, or stay about the same over the next 3
years? (Please circle one response.)
n=59 (74%)
Increase
50
(85%)
Decrease
1
(2%)
Stay the same
8
(14%)
-------
SECTION 2 CURRENT INFORMATION-GATHERING PROCESSES
How useful are the following sources of information.. .(Please check die boxes that apply.)
2.1. ...on general business and purchasing ?
n=60 (75%)
(b) Federal Gov't-supported technical assistance 45 (78%) 11 (19%) 2 (3%)
n=58 (72%)
(c) University extension programs 46 (75%) 12 (20%) 3 (5%)
n=61 (76%)
(d) Trade journals 1 (1%) 32 (43%) 41 (55%)
n=74 (93%)
(e) Technical publications 4 (6%) 34 (53%) 28 (42%)
n=66 (82%)
(f) Other media. Please list the most useful publications
(g) Consultants 18 (35%) 23 (44%) 11 (21%)
n=52 (65%)
(h) Industry associations 7 (10%) 31 (44%) 33 (46%)
n=71 (89%)
(i) Suppliers 4 (6%) 26 (36%) 42 (58%)
n=72 (90%)
(j) Informal networks 10 (18%) 27 (50%) 17 (31%)
n=54 (67%)
(k) Other. Please explain
Not Useful
useful
(a) State-supported technical assistance
37 (62%) 20 (33%) 3 (5%)
-------
2.2. .. .alternative chemicals, technologies and other -process improvements?
Not Useful Very
useful useful
(a) State-supported technical assistance 38 (62%) 21 (34%) 2 0%)
n=61 (76%)
(b) Federal GovVsupported technical assistance 44 (76%) 12 (21%) 2 0%)
n=58 (72%)
(c) University extension programs 40 (71%) 16 (29%) 0 (0%)
n=56 (70%)
(d) Trade journals 1 (2%) 30 (48%) 33 (50%)
n=66 (83%)
(e) Technical publications 6 (10%) 30 (48%) 27 (43%)
n=63 (79%)
(f) Other media. Please list the most useful publications
(g) Consultants 23 (43%) 22 (41%) 9 (17%)
n=54 (67%)
(h) Industry associations 5 (8%) 29 (45%) 40 (62%)
n=74 (93%)
(i) Suppliers 3 (4%) 24 (36%) 40 (60%)
n=67 (84%)
(j) Informal networks 18 (32%) 25 (45%) 13 (23%)
n=56 (70%)
(k) Other. Please explain
—5—
-------
2.3. ...health and environmental risks?
Not Useful Very
useful useful
(a) State-supported technical assistance 32 (48%) 22 (33%) 13 (20%)
n=67 (84%)
(b) Federal Gov't-supported technical assistance 39 (60%) 21 (32%) 5 (8%)
n=65 (81%)
(c) University extension programs 42 (70%) 14 (23%) 4 (7%)
n=60 (75%)
(d) Trade journals 5(7%) 41(57%) 26 (36%)
n=72 (79%)
(e) Technical publications 8(12%) 37(55%) 22 (33%)
n=67 (84%)
(f) Other media. Please list the most useful publications
(g) Consultants 23 (39%) 22 (37%) 14 (24%)
n=59 (74%)
(h) Industry associations 7 (10%) 29 (42%) 33 (48%)
n=69 (86%)
(i) Suppliers 14 (20%) 25 (36%) 31 (44%)
n=70 (88%)
(j) Informal networks 18 (28%) 35 (55%) 11 (17%)
n=64 (80%)
(k) Other. Please explain
-------
2.4 Think back to a particular time when a product or process was promoted as
having some benefit to you. What got your attention and prompted you to
investigate the product/process further?
n=53(66%)
Costs/Profitability
25
(47%)
Recommendations/Promotions
21
(40%)
Environmental considerations
16
(30%)
Health considerations
12
(23%)
Qualitative considerations
12
(23%)
There were multiple responses to this question and to question # 2.5; percentages thus
sum to more than 100%.
2.5 What kinds of information do you generally need to make the kind of decision
you made in the above example? (For example, comparative cost considerations, risk
factors, technological assessments etc)
Technical information
36
(51%)
Cost information
34
(48%)
Qualitative information
14
(20%)
Safety information
6
(8%)
Environmental
8
(11%)
n=71
(89%)
-------
2.6 We want to know what you think is the best way of transmitting information
concerning printing industry health and environmental risks to your business.
Could you please rank for us how useful you find each of the following ways of
getting information(
Not
useful
Useful
Very
useful
A.
Printed matter
— inserts in trade publications
4
(5%)
34 (44%)
40 (51%)
n=78 (97%)
— instruction manuals
12
(16%)
29 (39%)
33 (45%)
n=74 (92%)
— research papers
28
(44%)
26 (41%)
10 (16%)
n=64 (80%)
— other
(please give examples)
B.
Presentations at industry
conferences
n=71 (88%)
6
(8%)
28 (39%)
37 (52%)
C
Government conferences
n=63 (79%)
38
(60%)
21 (33%)
4 (6%)
D.
Trade shows
n=72 (90%)
5
(7%)
34 (47%)
33 (46%)
E.
Videotape
n=66 (82%)
11
(17%)
32 (48%)
23 (35%)
F.
Video conferencing
n=58 (72%)
39
(67%)
10 (17%)
9 (16%)
G.
Regular training and information
meetings in your area?
n=64 (80%)
12
(19%)
32 (50%)
20 (31%)
-------
2.7 Which of the following sources do you consider to have the most credibility in
reaching your industry with information? (Please circle one source.)
(a) Industry Associations 44 (59%)
(b) State Government 2 (3%)
(c) Federal Government 2 (3%)
(d) Universities 1 (1%)
(e) Suppliers 16 (22%)
(f) Research publications 7 (9%)
(g) Other (please state) 2 (3%)
n=74 (93%)
2.8 Would you participate in regularly scheduled training or on-site technical
assistance as a means of getting information on health and environmental risks?
(Please circle one response.)
YES
67 (87%)
n=77 (96%)
NO
10 (13%)
-------
SECTION 3:CURRENT INDUSTRY PRACTICE
This section of the questionnaire (with the exception of question 33.6) is specific to the
Lithographer and Screen Printer sub-samples. Responses to this section are
summarized in the Lithographer and Screen Printer questionnaire in Appendix B and C
respectively.
326 Prior to this meeting, were you aware of the "Design for the Environment"
EPA/Industry initiative? If "Yes", how did you hear about it?
Screen Printers Assoc. 1 (100%)
n=l (100%)
—10—
-------
SECTION 4( MOTIVATING CHANGE
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Printing Industry project is currently identifying
alternatives (including chemicals, work practices and technologies) which would reduce
health risks and produce less pollutants in the workplace. EPA and the Printing Trade
Associations are considering setting up a voluntary sign-up program to encourage
printers to use this information.
4.1 Would you be interested in signing-up with the EPA to voluntarily switch to one
of these lower risk alternatives? (Please check one box.)
YES NO DONT KNOW
34 (46%) 6 (8%) 34 (46%)
n=74 (92%)
4.2 Do you think a voluntary program like this should be organized by trade
associations, the EPA or a partnership of EPA and trade associations? (Please check
one box.)
YES NO DONT KNOW
49 (82%) 1 (2%) 10 (17%)
Of those who specified
Trade associations 8 (33%)
EPA 0 (0%)
Both 15 (62%)
n=60 (75%)
43 What kinds of things could this program do that would encourage you to join?
(For example, awards for environmental stewardship, certificate of membership etc.)
Awards/Certificates 5 (17%)
Monetary Awards 8 (27%)
Exchange of information 17 (57%)
n=30 (38%)
—11—
-------
imverstt
4.4 How important are the following factors in motivating you to participate in a
voluntary program to use safer products and work practices?
Most
Important
Not
important
important
(a)
Ecological impacts
31 (47%)
34 (52%)
1 (2%)
n=66 (82%)
(b)
Concern for human health
53 (79%)
14 (21%)
0 (0%)
n=67 (84%)
(c)
Avoidance of regulation
22 (39%)
22 (39%)
13 (23%)
n=57 (71%)
(d)
Costs of waste disposal
25 (38%)
34 (52%)
6 (9%)
n=65 (81%)
(e)
Marketing considerations
7 (11%)
28 (44%)
28 (44%)
(e.g., "greenness")
n=63 (79%)
(0
Image considerations
10 (16%)
37 (59%)
16 (25%)
n=63 (79%)
(g) Other. Please explain
Thank you for your participation.
We would like to assure you of complete anonymity in this study. Responses to this
questionnaire and any comments front the meeting will be treated confidentially. No results or
information will be attributed to any individual or company who participated in this study.
Please bring the completed questionnaire to the group meeting.
—12—
-------
APPENDIX B
PRINTING INDUSTRY PROJECT
LITHOGRAPHERS QUESTIONNAIRE
Sample Size (n) = 46
C
RESPONDENTS TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE ARE GUARANTEED ANONYMITY. RESPONSES
WILL NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY IN REPORTS OR OTHER
WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OF THE RESULTS OF THIS RESEARCH.
RESPONDENT: PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD LIKE A COPY OF
THE SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS
YES 41 NO _1
Please note that the sums of columns of percentages in this appendix may not equal
100%, due to rounding.
-------
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1 Approximately what percentage of your business is in the following segments?
(Please check (be boxes that apply.)
n=46 (100%)
<50%
50-95%
95-100%
(a) Flexography
2(4%)
0
0
(b) Letterpress
12(26%)
0
0
(c) Screen Printing
2(4%)
0
0
(d) Lithography
4(9%)
16 (35%)
24(52%)
(e) Electronic Print
10 (23%)
0
0
(f) Other. Please explain Offset printing 2 (29%), Engraving 1 (14%), Binding 2 (29%), DTP
1 (14%), Publishing 1 (14%).
1.2 How many staff do you employ?
At this location
0-5 6 (14%)
6-15 15 (34%)
16-60 17 (39%)
61-200 4 (9%)
>200 2 (5%)
N=44 (96%)
write the numbers in tbe boxes provided below.)
Company-wide
0-5 1 (5%)
6-15 7 (37%)
16-60 3 (16%)
61-200 3 (16%)
>200 5 (26%)
N=19 (41%)
1.3 What are your main products? (Please write in tbe blanks provided below.) n= 38 (90%)
(a) Commercial printing: 12 (32%)
(b) Publications: 14 (37%)
(c) Business materials: 12 (32%)
-------
1.4 Please indicate the average annual sales volume for your company in the last 3
years. n=31 (67%)
0-100,000 0
100,001-500,000 7 (23%)
500,001-1,500,000 7 (23%)
1,500,001-5,000,000 12 (39%)
>5,000,000 5 (16%)
1.5 Do you forecast sales to: increase, decrease, or stay about the same over the next
3 years? (Please circle one response.)
Increase 33 (94%)
Decrease 0
Stay the same 2 (6%)
n=35 (76%)
SECTION 2: CURRENT INFORMATION-GATHERING PROCESSES
How useful are the following sources of information.. .(Please check the boxes that apply.)
2.1. ...on general business and purchasing ?
Not
Useful
Very
useful
usefiil
(a)
State-supported technical assistance
23 (65%)
10(29%)
2(6%)
n=35 (76%)
(b)
Federal Gov't-supported technical assistance
27 (79%)
6 (18%)
1(3%)
n=34 (74%)
(c)
University extension programs
28 (76%)
8(22%)
1(3%)
n=37 (80%)
(d)
Trade journals
0
24 (53%)
21 (47%)
n=45 (98%)
(e)
Technical publications
3(7%)
24(60%)
13 (32%)
n=40 (87%)
(f)
Other media. Please list the most useful publications
n=3 (6%)
Graphic Arts Monthly 1 (33%)
Printing Impression 1 (33%)
American Prints 1 (33%)
(g) Consultants
8 (29%)
11(39%)
9(32%)
n=28 (61%)
(h)
Industry associations
4(9%)
19 (44%)
20(47%)
n=43 (93%)
d)
Suppliers
4(9%)
17 (39%)
23 (52%)
n=44 (96%)
-------
2.2. ...alternative chemicals, technologies and other process
improvements?
Not
Useful
Very
useful
useful
(a)
State-supported technical assistance
19(58%)
12 (36%)
2(6%)
n=33 (72%)
(b)
Federal Gov't-supported technical assistance 24 (80%)
5(17%)
1(3%)
n=30 (65%)
(c)
University extension programs
17 (59%)
12 (41%)
0
n=29 (63%)
(d)
Trade journals
1(3%)
20 (59%)
13 (38%)
n=34 (74%)
(e)
Technical publications
5 (15%)
16 (48%)
12 (36%)
n=33 (72%)
(f)
Other media. Please list the most useful publications
Printing Impressions
1 (100%)
n=l (2%)
(g)
Consultants
9 (33%)
13 (48%)
5 (19%)
n=27 (59%)
(h)
Industry associations
3 (9%)
13 (38%)
18 (53%)
n=34 (74%)
G)
Suppliers
1 (3%)
16 (44%)
19 (53%)
n=36 (78%)
(j)
Informal networks
6 (21%)
15 (54%)
7(25%)
n=28 (61%)
(k)
Other. Please explain
"Difficult to pet info";Printing Impressions; other pressmen.
-------
2.3. ...health and environmental risks?
Not
Useful
Very
useful
usefid
(a)
State-supported technical assistance
17 (49%)
13 (37%)
5 (14%)
n-35 (76%)
(b)
Federal Gov't-supported technical assistance
23 (68%)
10(29%)
1(3%)
n=34 (74%)
(c)
University extension programs
20(62%)
10(31%)
2(6%)
n=32 (70%)
(d)
Trade journals
3(8%)
25(64%)
11(28%)
n=39 (85%)
(e)
Technical publications
4(11%)
21 (60%)
10 (29%)
n=35 (76%)
(f)
Other media. Please list the most useful publications
• Instant & Small Commercial Printing.
(g)
Consultants
10 (36%)
10 (36%)
8 (29%)
(h>
n=28 (61%)
Industry associations
3(8%)
17 (44%)
18 (47%)
n=38 (83%)
m
Suppliers
9(24%)
15 (39%)
14 (37%)
n=38 (83%)
-------
2 J What kinds of information do you generally need to make the type of decision you
made in the above example? (For example, comparative cost considerations, risk factors,
technological assessments etc.)
n=39 (85%)
Technical Information 14 (36%)
Cost Information 17 (44%)
Qualitative Infomation 7 (18%)
Environmental Infomation S (13%)
2.6 We want to know what you think is the best way of transmitting information
concerning printing industry health and environmental risks to your business.
Could you please rank for us how useful you find each of the following ways of
getting information:
Not
Useful
Very
useful
usefid
A.
Printed matter.
— inserts in trade publications
2 (4%)
22 (49%)
21 (47%)
n=45 (98%)
— instruction manuals
4 (8%)
20 (49%)
17 (41%)
n=41 (89%)
— research papers
15(42%)
11(31%)
9 (25%)
n=35 (76%)
— other
Brochures 1 (20%)
Newsletters 2 (40%)
Trade Journals 1 (20%)
Suppliers 1 (20%)
Responding 5 (11%)
B.
Presentations at industry conferences
3(8%)
15 (38%)
21 (54%)
n=39 (85%)
C.
Government conferences
22(63%)
11 (31%)
2(6%)
n=35 (76%)
D.
Trade shows
4(10%)
22 (55%)
14 (35%)
n= 40 (87%)
E.
Videotape
7 (19%)
20(50%)
10(25%)
n=37 (80%)
F.
Video conferencing
19(63%)
7(23%)
4(13%)
n=30 (65%)
G.
Regular training and information meetings
6(18%)
17 (52%)
10(30%)
in your area?
n=33 (72%)
-------
2.7 Which of the following sources do you consider to have the most credibility in
reaching your industry with information? (Please circle one source.)
n=42 (91%)
(a) Industry Associations 23 (57%)
(b) State Government 1 (2%)
(c) Federal Government 1 (2%)
(d) Universities 1 (2%)
(e) Suppliers 9 (22%)
(f) Research publications 5 (12%)
(g) Other (please state)
Trade Publications 2 (3%)
2.8 Would you participate in regularly scheduled training or on-site technical .
assistance as a means of getting information on health and environmental risks?
(Please circle one response.)
n=45 (98%)
YES NO
37(82%) 8(18%)
-------
SECTION 3: CURRENT INDUSTRY PRACTICE
3.1. Can you provide examples to show what is the state of the art in your company
for environmental protection in the following areas?
(a) Equipment Changes:
New Emmission control devices; Automatic blanket washes; Parts washers;
off-set vs. letter press; Plate presser; Sulfur bumer-TEC HXC 2000;
Refrigeration Unit "Web Press".
(b) Housekeeping Issues:
Rags going to a can where excess chems are pressed out; recycle; more hiring
out; more ventilation; spin rags.
(c) Chemical Changes:
Chemicals with lower VOC; non-alcohol solutions; re-formulated inks; water
based ink; chemical storage room; MSDS forms.
(d) Other: Audits and assessments to understand equipment
-------
3.2 Do you use:
n=41 (89%)
(a) disposable wipes 12 (29%)
(b) shop towels? 37 (90%)
(c) gloves to apply blanket wash? 17 (41%)
(Please circle your response.)
33 If you use disposable wipes, how do you dispose of the spent wipes? n=10 (22%)
Disposal service
General refuse
1 (10%)
9(90%)
3.4 If you use shop towels, do you process shop towels before you send them to the
laundry? (For example: centrifuge?) Please check one box. n=38(83%)
3.5
YES
8 (21%)
What process do you use?
n=39 (85%)
NO
31 (79%)
Centrifuge 3 (30%)
Evaporation 2 (20%)
Other 5 (50%): Use covne textile: ham hap ash:
nnc separately: hire out: nnt in bin to drain excess liquid from hamel
bottom.
Do you use special practices to reduce the volume of product applied to the
blanket? (Please cbeck one box.) n=37 (80%)
YES
13 (35%)
Please explain
Employee training
NO
24(65%)
n=7 (15%)
7 (100%)
-9-
-------
3.6 Which products do you use to clean the blankets on your presses in the hand-
cleaning process? (Please list below.)
Reproklene BE3; AB DICK 4-4347 Universal blanket wash; Prisco-Xcello;
Star products #252 custom wash; Vam Blanket(12Q/133);Sometu;Bam & Press
wash; Hurst 106; Autowash 6000; Rollerwash; Unikern blanket wash; VMP;
water miscible wash.; Chemout blanket wash 90; I.B.C. 1488 Presswash; LB.G
color clean; printer's source co.;P.S. Solvent; Emerald premium wash;
Enviroclean wash; RBP wash; Supreme wash; Ancha Chemiocal Co; 100
presswash-V- 120w/water; Prisco power Klene; Autowash 7000; Red Magic;
3.7 Do you use any of the following automatic blanket washing systems? (Please check
Hurst QUFCH Wash # 104; Coors BIO-T; EBO B-I2; Autowash-X.
box next to all those responses that apply.)
n=23 (50%)
(a) Baldwin
5 (22%)
(b) Oxydry
1 (4%)
(c) Other (please state):
Shinahara
(d) No automatic blanket washing system
16 (70%)
1 (4%)
3.8 How often do you change the roll?
"Varies"; "Once per week"
-10—
-------
3.9 Which blanket wash produces) do you use? (Please list)
Uni Kleen customized product; Varn 120; Autowash 6000; Supreme Kleen
Recycle
Evaporation
Hired-out
5 (14%)
16 (46%)
14 (40%)
n=35 (76%)
3.10 Does your system have a solvent recycler attached? (Please check one box.)
3.12 Approximately how many gallons of blanket wash do you use per press per year?
n=28 (61%)
0-100 16 (57%) <1500 1(4%)
100-500 7 (25%)
500-1500 4 (14%)
3.13 How do you dispose of the spent blanket wash? n=38 (83%)
recycle 6(16%) hired-out 15(39%)
evaporation 17 (45%)
3.14 Have you considered trying alternative products with less impact on the
environment to replace blanket washes? (Please check one box.)
YES
0(0%)
NO
2(100%)
n=2 (4%)
3.11 Which blanket wash product(s) do you use? (Please list)
UNI-Kleen 1 (50%)
YES
30(70%)
n=43 (93%)
NO
13 (30%)
-------
3.15. If yes, which alternative products did you use?
'Tried a wash with lower VOC"; water based wash; special blanket sponge;
VARN 1; "none work well enough to use"; 1-1-1 Trichloroethane;towel products;
Bio presswash; citrusbase II; Emerald wash; V-120; IC Compound N'2 Wash;
Prisco Aquaclene;
3.16 How did the alternative product perform as a blanket wash compared to the old
product? (Please check one box.) n=27 (59%)
(a) Worse 17 (63%)
(b) Better 4 (15%)
(c) About the same 5 (19%)
(d) Hard to say 1 (4%)
3.17 How important were each of the following factors in motivating you to try the
alternative product? (Please rank each of the following factors from 1 (very important) to 5
(not important).
Factor
very
Not
important
Important
1
2
3
4
5
(a)
Health/toxicity concerns
n=30 (65%)
23 (77%)
6 (20%)
1(3%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
(b)
Ecological impacts
18 (60%)
9 (30%)
2(7%)
1(3%)
0(0%)
n=30 (65%)
3(10%)
(c)
Cost of product
n=30 (65%)
10 (33%)
7 (23%)
8 (27%)
2(7%)
(d)
Performance of product
n=30 (65%)
26 (87%)
4(13%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
(e)
Compliance with regulations
21 (70%)
6(20%)
2(7%)
0(0%)
1(3%)
n=30 (65%)
2(7%)
(0
Marketing considerations.
Le., "greenness"
n=30 (65%)
3(10%)
15(50%)
8(27%)
2 (7%)
(g)
Recommendations from other
printers
n=30 (65%)
5 (17%)
12(40%)
6(20%)
3(10%)
4 (13%)
(h) Other (please state)
n=2 (4%)
Suppliers
1(50%)
Tax breaks
1 (50%)
-------
3.18 Have you implemented any other changes in processes or work practices to reduce
your use of blanket washes? (Please circle one response.) n=34 (74%)
YES NO
10(29%) 24(71%)
3.19 If yes, could you describe what the change was?
Change wash Blades often; Install R.O. Units; Better Inks (soy); Organize work
better; substituted another product for the 1st step in washing the press; increase #
of washups in day.
3.20 Where did you obtain the information that led to this process change?
Suppliers/Pressroom 4 (50%)
Other printers/MSDS sheets 3 (38%)
Industry Associations 1 (13%)
n=8 (17%)
3.21 Has this change of products or processes saved money? (Please circle one response.)
n=21 (46%)
YES NO
10(48%) 11(52%)
3.22 How will this experience affect future decisions by your company regarding less
polluting products or processes?
"I will look for better material at lower cost"; "work on presses"; "influence
positive change"; "look at situation closer next time"; "look for safer products, not
just eco-friendly."
3.23 Prior to this meeting, were you aware of the "Design for the Environment"
EPA/Industry initiative? If "Yes", how did you hear about it?
Industry Associations Yes: 1 (3%) No: 38(97%)
—13—
-------
SECTION 4: MOTIVATING CHANGE
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Printing Industry project is currently identifying
alternatives (including chemicals, work practices and technologies) which would reduce
health risks and produce less pollutants in the workplace. EPA and the Printing Trade
Associations are considering setting up a voluntary sign-up program to encourage printers
to use this information.
4.1 Would you be interested in signing-up with the EPA to voluntarily switch to one
of these lower risk alternatives? (Please check one box.) n=43 (93%)
YES NO DON'T KNOW
16(37%) 3(7%) 24(56%)
4.2 Do you think a voluntary program like this should be organized by trade
associations, EPA, or a partnership of EPA and trade associations? (Please circle one
choice.) n=30 (65%)
YES NO DON'T KNOW
25 (83%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%)
Of those who specified:
Trade associations 5 (36%)
EPA 0(0%)
Both 9 (64%)
43 What kinds of things could this program do that would encourage you to join?
(For example, awards for environmental stewardship, certificate of membership etc.)
n=18 (39%)
Awards/Certificates 4 (22%)
Monetary Awards 4 (22%)
Exchange of Information 10 (55%)
Other suggestions included: freedom from governmental regulation; "help the
entire industry"; act as a "clearing-house for accurate unbiased information'';
lower fees; "EPA shou;d ease transition, it will happen"
—14—
-------
3.17 How important were each of the following factors in motivating you to tiy
the alternative product? (Please rank each of (be following factors from 1 (very important) to
5 (not important).
Factor
very
Not
important
Important
1
2
3
4
5
(a)
Health/toxicity concerns
23 (77%)
6 (20%)
1(3%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
n=30 (65%)
(b)
Ecological impacts
18 (60%)
9 (30%)
2 (7%)
1(3%)
0(0%)
n=30 (65%)
(c)
Cost of product
10 (33%)
7 (23%)
8 (27%)
2(7%)
3 (10%)
n=30 (65%)
(d)
Performance of product
26 (87%)
4 (13%)
0 (0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
n=30 (65%)
(e)
Compliance with regulations
21 (70%)
6 (20%)
2(7%)
0(0%)
1(3%)
n=30 (65%)
(0
Marketing considerations.
3 (10%)
15 (50%)
8 (27%)
2 (7%)
2(7%)
Le., "greenness"
n=30 (65%)
-------
3.19 If yes, could you describe what the change was?
Change wash Blades often; Install R.O. Units: Better Inks fsovV Organize wnrfr
better substituted another product for the 1st step in washing the press: increase #
of washups in dav.
3.20 Where did you obtain the information that led to this process change?
Suppliers/Pressroom 4 (50%)
Other printers/MSDS sheets 3 (38%)
Industry Associations 1 (13%)
n=8 (17%)
3.21 Has this change of products or processes saved money? (Please circle one response.)
n=21 (46%)
YES NO
10(48%) 11(52%)
3.22 How will this experience affect future decisions by your company regarding less
polluting products or processes?
"I will look for better material at lower cost": "work on presses": "influence
positive chanpe": "look at situation closer next time": "look for safer products, not
iust eco-friendlv".
3.23 Prior to this meeting, were you aware of the "Design for the Environment"
EPA/Industry initiative? If "Yes", how did you hear about it?
Industry Associations Yes: 1 (3%) No: 38(97%)
—Id—
-------
SECTION 4: MOTIVATING CHANGE
The Design for the Environment (DIE) Printing Industry project is currently identifying
alternatives (including chemicals, work practices and technologies) which would reduce
health risks and produce less pollutants in the workplace. EPA and the Printing Trade
Associations are considering setting up a voluntary sign-up program to encourage printers
to use this information.
4.1 Would you be interested in signing-up with the EPA to voluntarily switch to one
of these lower risk alternatives? (Please check one box.) n=43 (93%)
YES NO DON'T KNOW
16(37%) 3(7%) 24(56%)
4.2 Do you think a voluntary program like this should be organized by trade
associations, EPA, or a partnership of EPA and trade associations? (Please circle one
choice.) n=30 (65%)
YES NO DON'T KNOW
25 (83%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%)
Of those who specified:
Trade associations 5 (36%)
EPA 0 (0%)
Both 9 (64%)
43 What kinds of things could this program do that would encourage you to join?
(For example, awards for environmental stewardship, certificate of membership etc.)
n=18 (39%)
Awards/Certificates 4 (22%)
Monetary Awards 4 (22%)
Exchange of Information 10 (55%)
Other suggestions included : freedom from governmental regulation: "help the
entire industry": act as a "clearing-house for accurate unbiased information":
lower fees: "EPA shou:d ease transition, it will happen"
-------
4.4 How important are the following factors in motivating you to participate in
a voluntary program to use safer products and work practices?
Most
Important
Not
important
important
(a)
Ecological impacts
n=38 (83%)
19 (50%)
19(50%)
0(
(b)
Concern for human health
30 (75%)
10 (25%)
0
n=40 (87%)
(c)
Avoidance of regulation
n=30 (65%)
14 (47%)
12(40%)
4 (13%)
(d)
Costs of waste disposal
n=38 (83%)
17 (45%)
17 (45%)
4(11%)
(e)
Marketing considerations (e.g.,
"greenness")
n=35 (76%)
4(11%)
21 (60%)
10 (29%)
(f)
Image considerations
n=36 (78%)
6 (17%)
24 (67%)
6 (17%)
(g)
Other. Please explain
Thank you for your participation.
We would like to assure you of complete anonymity in this study. Responses to this
questionnaire and any comments from the meeting will be treated confidentially. No
results or information will be attributed to any individual or company who participated in
this study.
Please bring the completed questionnaire to the group meeting.
—18—
-------
APPENDIX C
PRINTING INDUSTRY PROJECT
SCREEN PRINTERS QUESTIONNAIRE
Sample Size (n) = 34
RESPONDENTS TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE ARE GUARANTEED ANONYMITY. RESPONSES
WILL NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY IN REPORTS OR OTHER
WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OF THE RESULTS OF THIS RESEARCH.
RESPONDENT: PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THE
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS
YES V* NO_l
Please note that the sums of columns of percentages in this appendix may not equal
100%, due to rounding.
-------
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1 Approximately what percentage of your business is in the following segments?
(Please check the boxes that apply.)
n=34
<50%
50-95%
95-100%
(a) Flexography
4(12%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
(b) Letterpress
1 (3)%
0(0%)
0(0%)
(c) Screen Printing
5 (15%)
9(26%)
20(59%)
(d) Lithography
1 (3%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
(e) Electronic Print
1 (3%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
(f) Other. Please explain
1.2 How many staff do you employ? (Please write the numbers in the boxes provided below.)
At this location Company-wide
0-5
7 (21%)
0-5
1 (8%)
6-15
13 (38%)
6-15
2 (17%)
16-60
7(21%)
16-60
5 (42%)
61-200
7 (21%)
61-200
2 (17%)
>200
0 (0%)
>200
2 (17%)
n=34 (100%) n=12 (35%)
13 What are your main products? (Please write in the blanks provided below.)
Membrane switch; flat poster board; walnut printing(!); pressure sensitive decals;
electric signs; wall covering fabrics; tee-shirts; consulting; banners; political signage;
logo design; decals; packaging; electronic instruments; screen on acrylic; engraving.
-------
Please indicate the average annual sales volume for your company in the last 3
years.
0-100,000
1
(4%)
100,001-500,000
7
(28%)
500,001-1,500,000
10
(40%)
1,500,001-5,000,000
2
(8%)
>5,000,000
5
(20%)
n=25
(74%)
Do you forecast sales to: increase, decrease, or stay about the same over the next 3
years? (Please circle one response.)
Increase 17 (71%)
Decrease 1 (4%)
Stay the same 6 (25%)
n=24 (71%)
-------
SECTION 2: CURRENT INFORMATION-GATHERING PROCESSES
How useful are the following sources of information.. .(Please check the boxes that apply.)
2.2. ...on general business and purchasing ?
Not
Useful
Very
useful
useful
(a)
State-supported technical assistance
n=25 (74%)
14 (56%)
10 (40%)
1 (4%)
(b)
Federal Gov't-supported technical assistance
n=24 (71%)
18 (75%)
5 (21%)
1 (4%)
(c)
University extension programs
n=24 (71%)
18 (75%)
4 (16%)
2 (8%)
(d)
Trade journals
n=29 (85%)
1 (3%)
8 (28%)
20 (48%)
(e)
Technical publications
n=26 (76%)
1 (4%)
10 (39%)
15 (33%)
(f)
Other media. Please list the most useful publications
Screen Printing Magazine
1 (33%)
Phone Book
1 (33%)
Screen Printing Network
1 (33%)
-------
2.2. .. .alternative chemicals, technologies and other process improvements?
Not Useful Very
useful useful
(a)
State-supported technical assistance
n=28 (82%)
19
(66%)
9 (32%)
0 (0%)
(b)
Federal Gov't-supported technical assistance
n=28 (82%)
20
(71%)
7 (25%)
1 (4%)
(c)
University extension programs
n=27 (79%)
23
(85%)
4 (15%)
0 (0%)
(d)
Trade journals
n=32 (94%)
0
(0%)
13 (41%)
19 (59%)
(e)
Technical publications
n=30 (88%)
1
(3%)
14 (47%)
15 (50%)
(0
Other media. Please list the most useful publications
n=0 (0%)
(g)
Consultants
n=27(79%)
14
(52%)
9 (33%)
4 (15%)
(h)
Industry associations
n=30(88%)
2
(7%)
16 (53%)
12 (40%)
(i)
Suppliers
n=31(91%)
2
(6%)
8 (26%)
21 (68%)
0)
Informal networks
n=28(82%)
12
(43%)
10 (36%)
6 (21%)
(k)
Other. Please explain
n=0(0%)
—5—
-------
2.3. ...healthand environmental risks?
Not Useful Very
useful usepit
(a)
State-supported technical assistance
n=32 (94%)
15
(47%)
9
(28%)
8
(25%)
(b)
Federal Gov't-supported technical assistance
n=31 (91%)
16
(52%)
11
(35%)
4
(13%)
(c)
University extension programs
n=28 (82%)
22
(79%)
4
(14%)
2
(7%)
(d)
Trade journals
n=33 (97%)
2
(6%)
16
(48%)
15
(45%)
(e)
Technical publications
n=32 (94%)
4
(12%)
16
(50%)
12
(37%)
(0
Other media. Please list the most useful publications
n=0 (0%)
(g)
Consultants
13
(42%)
12(
39%)
6
(19%)
n=31 (91%)
-------
25 What kinds of information do you generally need to make the kind of decision
you made in the above example? (For example, comparative cost considerations, risk
factors, technological assessments etc)
Technical information 22 (67%)
Cost information 17 (53%)
Qualitative information 7 (22%)
Safety information 6 (19%)
Environmental information 3 (9%)
n=32 (94%)
2.6 We want to know what you think is the best way of transmitting information
concerning printing industry health and environmental risks to your business.
Could you please rank for us how useful you find each of the following ways of
getting information:
Not
useful
Useful
Very
useful
A.
Printed matter:
— inserts in trade publications
2 (6%)
12
(36%)
19 (58%)
n=33 (97%)
— instruction manuals
8 (24%)
9
(27%)
16 (48%)
n=33 (97%)
— research papers
13 (48%)
15
(52%)
1 (3%)
n=29 (85%)
— other
n=0(0%)
(please give examples)
B.
Presentations at industry
conferences
n=32 (94%)
3 (9%)
13
(41%)
16 (50%)
C
Government conferences
n=28 (82%)
16 (57%)
10
(36%)
2 (7%)
D.
Trade shows
n=32 (94%)
1 (3%)
12
(37%)
19 (59%)
"E.
Videotape
n=29 (85%)
4 (14%)
12
(41%)
13 (45%)
F.
Video conferencing
n=28 (82%)
20 (71%)
3
(11%)
5 (18%)
a
Regular training and information
6 (19%)
15(48%)
10(32%)
meetings in your area?
n=31 (91%)
-------
2.7 Which of the following sources do you consider to have the most credibility in
reaching your industry with information? (Please circle one source.)
(a)
Industry Associations
21 (66%)
(b)
State Government
1 (3%)
(c)
Federal Government
1 (3%)
(d)
Universities
0 (0%)
(e)
Suppliers
7 (22%)
0)
Research publications
2 (6%)
(g)
Other (please state)
0 (0%)
n=32 (100%)
2.8 Would you participate in regularly scheduled training or on-site technical
assistance as a means of getting information on health and environmental risks?
(Please circle one response.)
YES
30 (94%)
n=32 (94%)
NO
2 (6%)
-------
SECTION 3: CURRENT INDUSTRY PRACTICE
3.1- Can you provide examples to show what is the state of the art in your company
for environmental protection in the following areas?
(a) Equipment Changes:
Computerized systems; disposable water filter systems.
(b) housekeeping issues:
Separate dry chem wipe waste stream; cleaning floors with citrus-based
product; solvents and rags in closed containers; recycling systems.
(c) Chemical changes:
(d) other (please state)
3.2 Which ink sysiem(s) do you use in your printing processes? (Please check all those
that apply.)
Water 14 (41%) Vinyl 18 (53%)
UV 14 (41%) Plasticol 13 (38%)
Other (please specify) 19(56%) n= 32(94%)
-------
33 Do you currently use a spray product to facilitate ink removal as described in
Step 1? (Please check one box below.)
YES NO
11 (34%) 21 (66%)
n=32(94%)
3.4 Do you currently use a spray product to wet the screen as in Step 2? (Please check
one box below.)
YES NO
9 (30%) 21 (70%)
n=30(88%)
3.5 What alternative work practices have you used to avoid the use of a spray
product in Step 1 or Step 2?
Pump spraying; soaking in Water; Safety Klene service; Dry Film application;
mineral spirits; High pressure; U.V. cleaner; Clean screen with solvent; recycle
lacquer thinner to wash screens; recirculating wash-out sink; brushes.
3.6 Do you use a rag in Step 2? (Please check one box below.)
YES NO
27 (84%) 5 (16%)
n=32 (94%)
3.7 If so, do you use: (Please check one box below.)
(a) a cloth rag 17 (59%) (b) a disposable rag 12 (52%)
n=29 (85%)
3.8 Of the ink degradents you have tried inStep 3, did you choose any that were
"environmentally friendly"? (Please check one box below.)
YES NO
19 (76%) 6 (24%)
n=25 (74%)
—10—
-------
3.9 If YES, what was the single most important factor in your decision to try the new
product? (Please circle one of the following responses.)
(a)
Performance of the new product
10
(36%)
(b)
Less impact on the environment
4
(14%)
(c)
Costs of waste disposal
0
(0%)
(d)
Human health/toxicity concerns
11
(39%)
(e)
Avoidance of regulations
1
(4%)
(f)
Marketing (i.e. advantage from being "green")
0
(0%)
(g)
Other reasons. (Please explain.)
n=
2
=28
(7%)
(87%)
3.10 Do you have a high pressure wash system in your reclamation area? (Please check
one box below.)
YES NO
29 (93%) 2
n=31(91%)
3.11 Have you installed a solvent recycling system in your reclamation area? (Please
check one box below.)
YES NO
13 (43%) 17 (57%)
n=30(88%)
3.12 If YES, what type?
Hydro-Blaster system; Charcoal filter system; Southdown environment service;
Towel Chem PB-15; Custom Built-2; CP.S. Autotype; acid etch.
3.13 Is this an enclosed automatic screen washing system?
YES NO
5 (21%) 19 (79%)
n=24 (71%)
-------
3.14 Which of the following factors would be the most important in motivating you to
try a less polluting stencil remover (as in Step 5)? (Please circle one of the following
responses.)
(a) Performance of the new product 20 (61)
(b) Less impact on the environment 4 (12%)
(c) Costs of waste disposal 0 (0%)
(d) Human health/toxicity concerns 7 (21%)
(e) Avoidance of regulations 0 (0%)
(f) Marketing (i.e. advantage from being "green") 0 (0%)
(g) Other reasons. (Please explain.) 2 (6%)
n=33 (97%)
3.15 See Step 6( Approximately what percentage of the time do you use a degreaser
when reclaiming a screen? (Please check one response below.)
Less than 25%
9
(30%)
25-50%
5
(17%)
50-95%
1
(3%)
95-100%
14
(47%)
N/A
1
(3%)
n=30
(88%)
3.16 See Step 6b( Approximately what percentage of the time do you use a haze
remover when reclaiming a screen? (Please check one response below.)
Less than 25%
10
(33%)
25-50%
8
(26%)
50-95%
1
(3%)
95-100%
8
(26%)
NA
3
(10%)
n=30
(88%)
—12—
-------
3.17 Have you considered trying alternative products with less impact on the
environment to replace haze removers? (Please check one box.)
YES NO
21 (75%) 7 (25%)
n=28(82%)
3-18 If yes, which alternative products did you use?
ICC 846 Screen Clariikr; Autotype CPS; Safety Pius; Easy way product; Qtrie
degreaser; FRAN, MAR D KAZR; "need more info."
3.19 How did the alternative product perform compared to the old product? (Please
check one box.)
(a) Worse 4 {24%)
(b) Better 4 (24%)
(c) About the same 7 (41%)
(d) Hard to say 2 (12%)
r,=17(50%)
3.2Q How important were each of the following factors in motivating you to try the
alternative product? (Please rank each of the foliofactors from J (ray important) to 5
(not important).
Factor
very
m
important
Important
1
2
3
4
5
fa)
HeaJth/toxicity concerns
20 (87%)
2 (9%)
1 (4%)
0
(0%)
0 (0%)
n=23 (66%)
-------
(f) Marketing considerations, 3 (13%) 2 (8%) 6 (26%) 6 (26%) 6 (26%)
i.e., "greenness"
n=23 (66%)
(g) Recommendations from other 4 (18%) 5 (23%) 2 (9%) 3 (14%) 8 (36%)
printers
n=22 (64%)
(h) Other (please state): Ozone
depleting substance is the
green-est; The Boss!.
3.21 Have you implemented any other changes in processes or work practices to
reduce your use of reclamation chemicals? (Please circle one response.)
3.22 If yes, could you describe what the change was?
Filtration systems; Remove haze removers; eliminate lacquers; hire out rag
service; apply chem by brush; bleach to remove stencils; U.V; No aerosols.
3.23 Where did you obtain the information that led to this process change?
3.24 Has this change of products or processes saved you money? (Please circle one
response.)
YES
18 (44%)
NO
10 (66%)
n=28(82%)
Suppliers 8 (47%)
Trade shows 4 (24%)
Government 2 (12%)
Trade publications 3(18%)
n=17 (50%)
YES
12 (80%)
NO
3(20%)
n=15(44%)
—14—
-------
3.25 How will this experience affect future decisions by your company regarding less
polluting products or processes?
"Will use less printing product"; it was a "positive experience"; keep up
experimentation; "We are always looking for better ways."
3.26 Prior to this meeting, were you aware of the "Design for the Environment"
EPA/Industry initiative? If "Yes", how did you hear about it?
SECTION 4: MOTIVATING CHANGE
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Printing Industry project is currently identifying
alternatives (including chemicals, work practices and technologies) which would reduce
health risks and produce less pollutants in the workplace. EPA and the Printing Trade
Associations are considering setting up a voluntary sign-up program to encourage
printers to use this information.
4.1 Would you be interested in signing-up with the EPA to voluntarily switch to one
of these lower risk alternatives? (Please check one box.)
The Screen Printers Assoc Yes = 2 (7%) No = 26 (93%)
(SPA)
n=28
YES
18 (58%)
NO
3(10%)
DONT KNOW
10 (32%)
n=31(91%)
—15—
-------
4? Do you think a voluntary program like this should be organized by trade
associations/ the EPA or a partnership of EPA and trade associations? (Please check
one box.)
YES NO DONTKNOW
24 (80%) 1(3%) 5(17%) n=30(88%)
Of those who specified
Trade associations 3(33%)
EPA 0 (0%)
Both 6 (67%)
43 What kinds of things could this program do that would encourage you to join?
(For example, awards for environmental stewardship, certificate of membership etc)
Awards/Certificates 1 (8%)
Monetary Awards 4 (33%)
Exchange of Information 7 (58%)
n=12(35%)
—16—
-------
Draft Final Report
U.S. EPA Printing Industry Study
March 6,1993 Center for Business and Environmental Studies
APPENDIX D
PRINTING INDUSTRY STUDY: FOCUS GROUP SCHEDULE
Dale.
Location
Lead University
Sat, Dec 18,1992 Chicago /Sears Tower
Lithographers 9-12 noon; Lunch; Screen Printers 1-4 pjn.
Sat, Jan 23,1993 New Orleans/Ramada Hotel
Lithographers 9-12 noon; Lunch; Screen Printers 1-4 p.ra.
Tues, Jan 26 Minneapolis/Hyatt Nicolet Mall
Lithographers 1-4 p.m.; Dinner ;Screen Printers 6-9 p.m.
Tues, Feb 2 Edison, NJ/ Holiday Inn, Raritan
Lithographers (Breakfast) 7:30-10:30.
Screen Printers (Dinner ) 5-9p.m.
Sat, Feb 6 Boston, MA/Boston Park Plaza Hotel
Lithographers 9-12 noon; Lunch; Screen Printers 1-4 p.ra.
Tues Feb 9 Nashville, TN/ U.Tenn
Lithographers 1-4 p.m.; Dinner ;Screen Printers 6-9 p.m.
Tues Feb 23 SF Bay Area/ Cal StateHayward
Screen printers 1-4 pjn.; Dinner lithographers 6-9 pjn.
Wed, Feb 24 Los Angeles/ PIA S.Cal offices
Lithographers 2-5 p.m.; Dinner;Screen Printers 6-9 p.m.
CBES
CBES
U.Tenn/CBES
U. Mass
U.Mass/CBES
U.Tenn
CBES
CBES
Notes:
(1) Nashville calls by U.Tenn; all others by CBES
(2) CBES attended two meetings (Boston and Minneapolis)as facilitators.
(3) All telephone contact and screening of sample by CBES except Nashville, Tennessee.
(4) Telephone Interviews conducted for Miami samplein lieu of scheduled Focus Group.
-------
—: APPENDIX E:—
9/14/92
Proposed Research Design for Pollution Prevention Technology Transfer to
The Printing Industry
Purpose: To measure effectiveness of interventions when dissemination of OPPT pollution
tedinology information to industry occurs.1
Achieving this goal will allow us to:
• Measure actual reductions in the use of toxic and hazardous materials in the printing industry
through the transfer and adoption of pollution prevention technology by industry participants.
• Determine of effective methods of transfer, monitor the rate and amount of pollution
prevention technology adoption and provide feedback to the OPPT enabling improvements in
both technology and die methods of transfer in a timely and cost effective manner.
• Analyze the data from measurement instruments to provide future industry programs with a
proven model for pollution prevention technology transfer.
Methodology Summary (see also Timeline, p. 3)
After effective pollution prevention technology is developed and tested it will be transferred to
participants in the printing industry employing transfer techniques determined by statistically
significant survey/panel measurements.
On an initial basis, we will concentrate on printers that have between 20-99 employees,
representing >80% of the industry in terms of sales and employment The additional 20%
(mostly micro and large businesses) could be addressed in a future study. Specifically, the
methodology will include the following steps:
1) Develop different measurement instruments for each of three (3) industry segments that have
been identified as priorities by OPPT:
a) Lithography
b) Screen Fainting
c) Flexography
(Gravure and Letter Press industry segments can be added later if deemed necessary).
Major areas of measurement:
a) Present types of technology in use, including any present plans for changes that
would result in pollution prevention.
b) Present methods of obtaining technological information, including information on
pollution prevention technology as well as information about the most influential
channels of transfer.
c) General company demographic information including size, location, suppliers, etc.
^Pollution prevention technology by definition includes: chemical subtitutes, process technologies/ and
work practices.
-------
2) Form focus groups of 8 to 10 printers (categorized by industry sector) in each of nine (9)
locations. For initial testing and demonstration purposes, we would assume homogeneity
among those industry sectors, regardless of geographical location.
Possible sample frame would be:
a) New England—Boston
b) Mid-Atlantic—New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania
c) Mid-South—Tennessee
d) Southeast—Florida
e) South Central—Louisiana/Texas
f) Midwest—Chicago
g) Midwest—Ohio/Michigan
h) Northwest—Northern California
i) Southwest—Southern California
Focus groups would be used to validate instruments and gather some information useful for
the February, 1993 meeting. After focus group meetings, data would be analyzed and
measurement instruments modified as needed.
3) Administer measurement instruments to representative samples of printing industry
companies; establish baseline for all future measurements.
This baseline measure would provide a starting point or base from which to measure the
rate and amount of pollution prevention technology adopted by the industry as well as a
clear indication of the best methods for transferring this technology to the three segments
of the industry. As a part of this baseline measure we would work with the sample
population to develop interest and commitment in participating in a longitudinal study.
4) Select industry panels from sample population for future measurement of interventions based
on representativeness in terms of:
a) Industry sector (i.e., Litho, Screen Print, Flexography)
b) Firm size based on number of employees (a proxy for sales)
c) Other classifications to be derived from the focus group activity
5) Administer shorter follow-up measurement instruments to determine rate and types of
technology adoption as well as any changes in use of information channels for technology
transfer. Reduce and analyze data. These data measurements would be done on a periodic
basis, perhaps semiannually or annually, as necessary.
6) Provide feedback to OPPT for incorporation into overall program design and
implementation.
7) Develop technology transfer model for future industry programs.
—2—
-------
Timetable
Date
Task
Estimated cost
early October *92
• Begin preparation of measurement
instrument for each industry sector
• University participants meet to
contribute expertise to instrument
design.
early December *92
• Measurement instruments ready.
• Conduct focus group sessions.
mid January *93
• Incorporate feedback from focus
groups.
• Have final instruments ready to
administer to panels
late January *93
• Administer measurement instruments
to sample population.
• Begin tabulation of data
February *93
meeting
• Baseline data ready.
* Establish panels.
March '93
• Intervention: dissemination of OPPT
pollution prevention technology.
April '93
• Assess initial impact of intervention on
industry practice via measurement of
panel response.
October *93
and each 6 months
thereafter
• Assess longitudinal impact of initial
intervention on industry practice via
measurement of panel response.
* Determine need for future
interventions.
—3—
-------
APPENDIX F:-
PRINTING INDUSTRY STUDY
Screening Device - Screen Printers
L INTRODUCTION
Hello, my name is . I am calling from the School of Business at California State
University.following the letter sent by the SPAI. Did you receive the letter ? We are working on
a research project with two other Universities: U. Mass and U. Tennessee and would like to take
20 minutes or so to ask you about how you obtain information on pollution prevention issues.
The purpose of the project is to give you the opportunity to have an input into a specific national
program which will assist your industry to reduce pollution by exploring alternative processes
and products. We know you are very busy and you are bombarded with new information daily.
We are particularly interested in how your industry obtains information and makes decisions on
alternative products or technologies.
By participating, you will have the opportunity to shape a specific program called Design for the
Environment and will be given first priority in any training or technical assistance which may
come about as a result of our research. Copies of our final results will be sent to participants.
All information will be treated confidentially with no comments attributed to any individual or
company present at the meeting.
Can we schedule 20 minutes to go over my questions?
[ ] YES > Confirm name, address, tel & fax # and employee info in
Section n.
[ ] NO > Can we send you the questionnaire anyway?
IL VERIFICATION OF COMPANY INFORMATION
1. Company Name:
2. Contact Name/Title:
3. Main Business: Lithography YES [ ] NO [ ] If NO, End Interview.
4. Number of Employees (in this facility) [ ] If >100, End Interview.
-------
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD
HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA 94542-3066
HOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
Idephone: (510)881-3311
Center for Business and Environmental Studies
: APPENDIX G
December 11,1992
PRINTING INDUSTRY STUDY
INVITATION
Dear [NAME]:
Thank you for accepting our invitation to attend the meeting on Saturday, December 19th.
The location for the meeting is: 7200 Sears Tower, Chicago Illinois 60606. We would like you
to be our guest for lunch at 12 noon. The meeting will start at 1:30 p.m. and end by 4:30 p.m.
The purpose of the Chicago meeting is to provide input to a co-operative government/industry
sponsored project called the Design for the Environment (DfE). We are interested in how
information on less polluting products and technologies can be better communicated to the
printing industry. The DfE project is a co-operative government/industry sponsored project
involving industry trade associations (PIA, SPAI, NAPL), printing chemical and equipment
manufacturers and suppliers, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
This first meeting will be attended only by screen printers and will provide you with an
opportunity to shape programs which assist your industry in adopting less polluting technologies
and products. As a participant, you will be able to share experiences in an informal setting and
would be offered the chance to participate in any training or technical assistance which may be
recommended as a result of these meetings. A copy of the results of our research will be made
available to those who attend the meeting.
Since we are only talking to a limited number of people, the success and quality of our
discussion depends very much on the people who say they will attend. We have enclosed a short
questionnaire which we are asking participants to complete and bring to the meeting. The
meeting is also intended to get feedback from you on the attached questionnaire and to
incorporate your suggestions for changes. Your experience as a small business in this industry is
invaluable. We hope you will be able to attend.
We would like to assure you that the discussion and responses to the questionnaire will be treated
confidentially and, that no information or comments will be attributed to any individual or
company.
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
-------
CBES Chicago meeting invitation
November 20,1992
page 2
We will call your office to confirm your participation. Please feel free to call my office at (510)
881-3554 with any questions you may have.
I look forward to meeting you in Chicago on this important and timely project for the industry.
Very truly yours,
Samuel I. Doctors
Director, CBES
Professor of Business Administration
Enclosure
-------
APPENDIX H
Proposed Research Design for Pollution Prevention Technology Transfer
to The Printing Industry Add-on to Grant # X - 820802 - 01
February 1994
Goals:
I. To measure the effectiveness of EPA OPPT interventions in motivating risk re-
duction behavior as a result of the transfer of OPPT pollution prevention tech-
nology/information dissemination to the printing industry.
II. To provide feedback to OPPT to improve the process of technology trans-
fer/information dissemination to the Printing Industry.
III. As a result of (II) develop a technology transfer/information dissemination stra-
tegy for the Printing Industry.
Achieving these goals will require CBES to:
• Measure the amount and types of risk reduction in the printing industry that has
already occurred and the methods by which this risk reduction technology was
disseminated/transferred and adopted.
• Develop a baseline for future measurements of the adoption and use of pollution
prevention technology by printers (Lithographers and Screen Printers), nationwide,
that occurs as a result of the dissemination/transfer of such technology by EPA's
DfE Program. Develop two national panels, one for Lithographers and one for
Screen Printers, that are representative of printers for those having one (1) to two
hundred (200) employees, that can be used for these future measurements.
• Determine the most effective methods of technology transfer/information
dissemination to printers, including any differences in method or processes that may
be required because of regional differences, size of printer, differing local, regional,
or state regulatory environments, etc. Determine the most effective existing methods
of technical communication.
• Develop some preliminary measures of financial incentives that might be needed for
small and medium size printers to reduce environmental risk.
• Monitor the rate and amount of pollution prevention technology adopted and
provide feedback to the OPPT which would allow improvements in both the types
of risk reduction technology provided to printers and the methods of transfer
(channels of information dissemination, frequency, etc.) in a timely and cost effective
manner.
-------
Center for Business and Environmental Studies
Proposal for DfE Pollution Prevention Technolow Transfer
February 1994
• Gather and analyze data from these two national panels, one composed of
Lithographers and one composed of Screen Printers. This data will be analyzed to
provide future OPPT risk reduction industry programs with proven techniques for
pollution prevention technology transfer/information dissemination that should be
helpful in designing future industry programs.
Methodology Summary
It is assumed that as effective pollution prevention technology is developed and tested,
it will be transferred to printers. This transfer will employ techniques and methods
determined from working with the two national panels of Lithographers and Screen
Printers that are developed during this research project. It is further assumed that these
technology transfer/information dissemination techniques will be based on statistically
significant survey/panel measurements and from industry committee inputs.
We will concentrate on printers with between 1-200 employees, representing >90% of
the industry in terms of sales and employment. The methods for reaching the additional
10% (i.e. those employing more than 200 people) could be addressed in a future study.
Specifically, the methodology will include the following steps:
1) Develop a distinct questionnaire for each of the two (2) industry segments identified
as priorities by OPPT:
a) Lithography
b) Screen Printing
(The Flexography industry segment can be added later if deemed necessary).
Major areas of measurement:
a) Present types of technology in use, including any present plans for changes
that would result in pollution prevention and/or risk reduction.
b) Present methods of obtaining technological information, including
information on pollution prevention and risk reduction technology as well as
information about the most influential and credible channels of
dissemination/transfer that are commonly employed by printers in nine
different regions, representing more than 75% of all printing businesses in the
U.S.
c) The types of the technical information that are most easily used as well as the
types of technical information that are most credible.
d) The types of local, regional, and/or state environmental regulatory systems as
they affect printers.
e) Some measurement of the impact of the Lithographer Case Study to
determine its impact and importance.
—2—
-------
Center for Business and Environmental Studies
Proposal for DfE Pollution Prevention Technology Transfer
February 1994
f) Preliminary analysis of the types and amounts of financial incentives that
may be needed when an investment is required and such funds are otherwise
not available from traditional sources of capital.
g) Other factors that are important in motivating printers to adopt risk reduction
technology.
h) General company demographic information including size (sales and number
of employees), location, suppliers, etc.
2) Using data from the Phase I focus group study to develop a baseline questionnaire,
we will develop a representative stratified sample of Lithographers and Screen
Printers in nine regions.
Sample frame would be:
1) New England—Boston
2) Mid-Atlantic—New York/Northern New Jersey (New York City Area)
3) Southeast—Florida (Miami)
4) South Central—Texas (Houston/Dallas)
5) Midwest—Chicago
6) Upper Midwest—Minneapolis
7) Northwest—Northern California (Bay Area)
8) Southwest—Southern California (Los Angeles)
9) Northwest—Seattle/Tacoma (Portland, only for some telephone interviews)
3) The Measurement Task would be to administer questionnaires to representative
samples of printing industry companies, Lithographers and Screen Printers. This
will establish a baseline for all future measurements.
This baseline measure will provide a starting point or base from which to
measure the rate and amount of pollution prevention and risk reduction
technology adopted by the industry as well as a clear indication of the best
methods for transferring this technology to these two segments of the industry.
As a part of this baseline measure, we will work with the sample population to
develop interest and commitment in participating in a longer term longitudinal
study, i.e., a type of panel.
3a) The first baseline study would be limited to California and Texas which together
have about 18% of the printing establishments in the U.S. and represent very
different environmental regulatory systems. These different regulatory systems
should provide a good contrast for initial reactions to our panel development
and for testing our questionnaires. We will develop a sample of about 80 to 100
lithographers who will form part of the nationwide panel.
3b) After completing the Lithographer baseline study in these two areas, we will do
the same for a sample of about 50 to 70 Screen Printers in California and Texas.
This will form the first portion of our national panel for Screen Printers and will
—3—
-------
Center for Business and Environmental Studies
Proposal for DfE Pollution Prevention Technology Transfer
February 1994
be used to validate our Screen Printer baseline questionnaire. Screen Printing
firms will first be selected from the Dunn's sample business population. Since it
is not always possible to determine by SIC Code which firms are primarily
Screen Printers, CBES may use other data sources to supplement the Dunn's data
for developing the Screen Printing Panel.
4) Select the balance of the industry panels from the Dunn & Bradstreet Business
Establishment Data Base, about 400 lithographers and about 250 Screen Printers.
a) Industry sector (i.e., Lithographers & Screen Printers)
b) Firm size based on number of employees (a proxy for firm size); we will use
three size categories: 1-9,10-49,50-99, and 100-199 employees.
5) Administer baseline questionnaires to the balance of the Lithographer and Screen
Printer Panels, about 400 Lithographers and 250 Screen printers in the other regions
(see 2 above).
6) Analyze data from two sets of questionnaires and write a baseline final report. This
report will allow OPPT to further improve its methods of technology transfer and
information dissemination. In addition, it will allow CBES to measure changes in
printing firm behavior in reducing risks from toxic and hazardous chemical use as a
result of the transfer of OPPT provided pollution prevention technology.
-------
Center for Business and Environmental Studies
Proposal for DfE Pollution Prevention Technology Transfer
February 1994
Timetable
Date
Task
Estimated cost
mid March
'94
• Preparation of questionnaires for each
industry sector
• Meeting with OPPT to complete instrument
design.
• Select Panels in CA & TX/LA
$12,000
mid April '94
• Revise questionnaires
• Begin interviews in TX & CA
$3,500
late June '94
• Complete Interviews CA & TX
• Revise questionnaires and complete plan to
administer to panels in other regions
• Select panel samples in other regions.
• Tabulate data from CA & TX
• Write final report for CA & TX portion of
national sample
$34,000
mid July '94
• Administer questionnaires to sample
population, Lithographers (about 400,100 in-
person & 300 by telephone) and Screen
Printers (about 250,65 in-person and 185 by
telephone); administer financial scenarios
$105,075
($240 • 165 in-
person interviews
(100 Lithographers
and 65 Screen
Printers), $39,600;
$135*485 telephone
interviews, $65,475;
(300 Lithographers
and 185 Screen
Printers).
late Sept. '94
• Baseline data gathering completed
• Reduce and analyze data
• Write Final Report
• Complete panels & prepare for subsequent
measurements.
$17,145
These estimates assume panels of about 500 Lithographers and 320 Screen Printers
developed as stratified random samples. We also assume that about 1/4 of each panel
will be interviewed in-person and 3/4 by telephone. We also assume that about 10% of
the panels will be replaced each time an additional measurement is made, and the 1/4
of the panels interviewed in-person will be rotated after each interview cycle.
Budget figures assume that $12,000 from the first $30,000 grant in FY '94 will be used
for the baseline measurement together with an additional grant of $145,000. CSUH will
match, in kind, 6% of this $162,000 or about $9,720 for a total of $166,720.
—5—
-------
Center for Business and Environmental Studies
Proposal for DfE Pollution Prevention Technology Transfer
February 1994
LINE ITEM BUDGET
1)
Personnel
$77,000
2)
Fringe Benefits ® 12%
$9,240
3)
Travel
$14,000
4)
Equipment
N/A
5)
Supplies/Mail
$3,500
6)
Contractual
N/A
7)
Construction
N/A
8)
Other - Duplication
$2,452
9)
Total Direct Costs
$104,740
10)
Indirect Costs © 45% of Direct Labor
$38,808
11)
Total
$145,000
University Match ® 6% $8,700
-------
Center far Business and Environmental Studies
Proposal for DfE Pollution Prevention Technology Transfer
February 1994
Personnel Breakdown
Samuel I. Doctors
(Principal Investigator)
Taylor McNamee
(Project Manager)
Peter Baldwin
(Senior Associate)
Sheri Reson
(Senior Associate)
Diana Dillaway
(Senior Associate)
Research Assistants
Secretarial
24 days ® $506/day
80 days ® $320/day
20 days © $175/day
30 days © $200/day
20 days ® $250/day
150 days ® $100/day
111 days ® $88/day
$12,144
$25,600
$3,500
$6,000
$5,000
$15,000
$9,768
(Brief biographies of CBES Staff are appended to this proposal.)
—7—
------- |