Current talk about the Obama Administration’s trouble with transparency reveals a strong parallel with sustainability-oriented businesses: it’s easy (and sounds so nice) to say you’re committed to transparency; try to deliver on that promise and you’re likely to encounter walls of uncertainty, fear, and bureaucratic resistance.

When transparency means revealing unfavorable or unflattering information (and it usually does to some extent), companies and institutions often get cold feet. They consider the negative publicity that could ensue and decide they can’t risk it. What they often fail to consider is the risk of continuing to hide and the benefits of public confession.

Someone’s bound to find out your secrets eventually, and then you have no control over the story. On the other hand, social psychology research, along with plenty of anecdotal evidence, shows that organizations that acknowledge problems—and say what they’re doing to address them—are perceived as more credible. Telling the truth makes you trustworthy. This is why attention to challenges is a factor in the Thinkshift Credibility Quotient™ (see an earlier post on how this applies to companies introducing advanced technologies).

You may be familiar with one of the best examples of transparency and acknowledging challenges: Patagonia’s Footprint Chronicles program, which traces the company’s products through the supply chain. If not, here’s a look at the site in action:

I look up a jacket, and the website tells me the sustainability “good” (it’s recyclable), and the “bad” (the waterproof finish uses a chemical that persists in the environment). It also tells me they’re researching alternatives, but for now the finish stays because it’s essential to performance.

The fact that they’re telling me a negative thing makes the positives they point out all the more credible. It also has the interesting effect of making me as a potential purchaser share responsibility. They’ve told me about the chemical; if I want to reduce its incidence, I can forego waterproofing. If I want the waterproofing, I am partly responsible for the sustainability problem. Nice, huh?

It can be easy to spot greenwashing when others are doing it, but often it’s harder to know how your own communications will stack up under scrutiny. One reason can be that you’re so close to the material you can’t see the problems. Here are four key symptoms we look for in a Thinkshift Credibility Quotient assessment—if you can spot these (and correct them), you’ll be less susceptible to greenwashing accusations.

Irrelevant or unprovable claims— Statements like “world’s best,” “leader in the field,” and “greenest” are unprovable, and are used so often they are meaningless. It also doesn’t help if you’re making comparisons to very ungreen products or practices.

No proof— No matter how solid your claims are, you need to back them up with hard evidence. (And making people read a white paper doesn’t necessarily count.)

Not walking the talk—Do what you say you’re doing. It’s a sure credibility killer if you’ve only got one small, greenish effort and the rest of your business has a huge carbon footprint.

Jargon or fluffy language—Vague statements without detail or backup, language only a scientist could grasp, or meaningless marketing puffery make you insincere at best and guilty of greenwashing at worst.

To heal these afflictions, make easily understood claims in plain language; back them up with facts, third-party verification, and context; and make sure you’re as green as you say you are. People are more skeptical than ever of green claims, and a key part of the solution is credible communications.

Companies making vague and poorly supported environmental claims are about to get a smackdown from the Federal Trade Commission’s upcoming revised Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (aka Green Guides), according to Victor Bell of Environmental Packaging International, which has been giving the agency feedback on the long-awaited revision. That is, if the guidelines are enforced—and Bell believes they will be.

Bell’s presentation at the recent Sustainable Packaging Forum conference in Atlanta caused a stir—many in the audience seemed taken aback by the draft guidelines’ stringency (and possibly by Bell’s delightfully vehement presentation of them). For example, Bell said, a brand name like Eco‐Safe would be considered deceptive if it leads consumers to believe that the product or package has environmental benefits that the manufacturer can’t  substantiate. A wrapper labeled “environmentally friendly” because it wasn’t bleached with chlorine would be considered deceptive if production of the wrapper created other harmful substances. And claims that packaging is recyclable will be considered deceptive unless they’re recyclable in at least 60 percent of U.S. communities.

I preceded Bell on stage with a presentation on the Thinkshift Credibility Quotient—the public debut of  the official version of our system for measuring the credibility of any communication. I was happy to see that the criteria we’re using line up neatly with the FTC’s draft guidelines. (Bell told me later that he thought I was saying essentially the same thing; I was just nicer about it. Maybe I shouldn’t have been!)

I see credibility questions popping up more and more—and I think companies that believe they can continue forever to make grandiose, unsupported claims are in for an unpleasant surprise.