A recent New York Times report notes that Growth Energy, an ethanol advocacy group, has blanketed the subway station closest to the U.S. Capitol with ads saying “No beaches have been closed due to ethanol spills” and calling ethanol “America’s clean fuel.” The article goes on to dispute that claim with a pile of data, including this nugget:

Fertilizer and pesticide runoffs from the U.S. Corn Belt are key contributors to “dead zones” in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic Coast. A 2008 study by independent researchers, published in the [National Academy of Sciences'] Proceedings journal, calculated that increasing corn production to meet the 2007 renewable fuels target would add to nitrogen pollution in the Gulf of Mexico by 10 to 34 percent.

Thus the ads violate at least two key credibility factors: full accuracy, not just technical correctness (beaches may not have been closed due to spills, but normal production has polluted coastal waters), and claims that are consistent with actions. (For more, see the Thinkshift Credibility Quotient™ fact sheet.) Most clean energy options have some sort of downside, and you know the old saying: if you’re a pot, don’t call the kettle black.

I can’t speak to Growth Energy’s intentions, but even the most ethical organizations sometimes fall into the bad comparison trap: seizing on current news to draw attention to your benefits is smart communications, but you have to make sure any comparisons you make will stand up to scrutiny. This may sound like an obvious point, but true believers often become blind to their solution’s downsides. Skeptics, on the other hand, will see them in high def.

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?

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.