Cfrgtkky

I personally don't find this picture suitable for a logo. It has shading, complicated color changes, and tiny detail - it looks around 6x6 cm on my monitor, and has tiny stars which might be a single pixel at that blown-up size.

Logos are meant to be used in a lot of different contexts, and instantly recognizable (without change) when printed in reduced color schemes including monochrome, when photocopied 3-4 times, or when engraved on a pen (about 3x3 mm). Both for their purpose (a symbol, as Scott points out) and for usage limitations, they are meant to be as simplified as possible. Just like your company motto (or elevator pitch) shouldn't be a 4 page document, your logo shouldn't be a detailed picture. So it is best practice to use something fairly simplified in a logo, in terms of few, clean lines and of color palette.

If you follow this best practice, your "racial" problem will solve itself. At the level of abstraction used for a good logo, the features of the face will be too ambiguous to be representative of a race. (Sure, a good cartoonist will be able to suggest a race with just a few strokes - but this would have to be done on purpose, and here you want the opposite).

Before deciding on a logo, look through the logos of companies who can afford to drop a 6 figure sum for theirs, and see what they all do and what they don't do, and how far they go on the abstract vs. detailed continuum.

The easiest, clearest solution to this problem is to not use figures of any kind in the logo.

Stick to symbology and type modification.

If the symbology uses some sort of nondescript "stickman-like" figure that may be acceptable. However, color will play a large role there. And one can mistakenly start getting into "cartoon" type of figures which may not be the message the company wants to convey either.

This issue is typically not merely due to international sales/service, it can be localized as well. Unless ethnicity is a selling point which it often is not, then avoiding humans in logos can be the best option.

Use a fist and a hammer, or just the hammer.. there's no need for a face. That "logo" is rather intricate in my opinion. It won't reproduce well at smaller sizes and will come across as fairly ominous at larger sizes. I perceive far more "world domination" than "customer service" from it.

_{Being in the US, that image merely reminds me of Dr. Manhattan, an all powerful, God-like, omniscient, character from the Watchmen comic books.}

Ok. Finally, the postmodern era has reached this forum. I can not fully express my politically incorrect view on the "I am offended" part. But I will address some inconsistencies on the logo itself.

That is not a logo, that is an illustration, a mission patch or something similar. It is very nice as such, but as a logo it needs to be simplified.

A lot fewer lines on the background, a simplified shape, probably a bit more geometric. That will help you make a more generic head shape (but of course someone will argue later that it is not a female)

Of course, the overall shape needs to fit the name of the company... If it is called Nordic Manpower Inc...

Another problem is that the man "hard-working for all of us", as mentioned. The hammer (or the T ruler) looks like a communist symbol, a labor symbol, not a technological concept.

How can I avoid that the logo be perceived as unfair or racist or whatsoever?

Ok, this is a site of questions and answers about graphic design, as you will understand it's impossible that any of those who participate in this site can answer about how your logo will be perceived. Not here or anywhere. We should make a campaign to use the logo and then a statistic to see what percentage of people were affected. I don't think Photoshop solves this problem.

Seen this way, your question is off topic here.

Now, there may be a solution, perhaps changing the question:

What should I do if my logo doesn't represent conceptually the 100% of the premises that my company handles?

It's clear that no matter how beautiful the logo is, there is a conceptual failure of relevance, since you have raised it, and beyond knowing whether this will affect a future audience or not, it's something that must be solved beforehand.

And for this there's an exaggeratedly simple answer: tell your designer the logo is excellent formally but with a conceptual flaw that can not be overlooked. He, as a professional, must find a way to solve this fault.

By the way, and this is something personal, the biggest problem with the logo as it stands now is not the possible racial discrimination. For me, the most serious is its more than defined general graphic representation simulating images of European authoritarian regimes from the beginning of the last century. Conceptually it implies authoritarianism, oppression and submission. We are happily in the 21st century.

I've seen the use of colors which aren't a skin color, such as blue or orange or even gray to fix this problem.

You should also consider simplifying the character (and the logo as a whole)

Source

PragerU sometimes uses a dark blue for people:

I've seen others go with a silhouette

In all of the above examples, they used one solid color for the skin-tone, which solves the color and simplification problem.

Unfair to who? Racist to who? People who aren't white? Why should the fact that the man is white make any difference to the image?

I think an expression of antipathy to the man being white is racist in itself. Though I don't have a suggestion for an alternative, myself, I don't feel that the race of the person in the picture should be a major factor in its creation. And to say that the featuring of a white man in the image is racist on the basis of his race is strikingly oxymoronic.

The people who are offended by the mere existence of white men are also offended by an increasing number of all kinds of things (I highlight their reaction to promotion of healthy body images in particular) and it would be infeasible and ultimately futile to try to satiate their often indiscriminate anger to even the most innocent of topics.

I won't convince you to make any changes in particular to the image, whether you keep it as is or otherwise, I just feel that making such alterations to the image because it may offend textbook racists is unjustifiable - counterintuitive, even.

It would be a good idea to not automatically go to someone being offended by white-ness. Nobody can change their ethnicity, and anyone offended by that fact is by default racist themselves.