Greener World Media’s State of Green Business 2010 report is out, and, as it did last year, this excellent report drives home the need for companies to communicate credibly and completely about their sustainability efforts and back up green claims with relevant information.

One reason is “radical transparency”—people are using Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms and mobile apps to instantly disseminate news and opinions to desktop and smartphone alike. If you’re not credible, you’ll be called on it—and everyone will know about it. This is good news—it’s making all kinds of companies be more sustainable, and it seems to be prompting better communications (albeit more slowly than I’d like).

But it’s also making heads spin. We’re being overloaded with information, and it’s hard to know what’s credible and what isn’t. In one egregious example, most consumers think “natural” is better than “organic.” Third-party ratings such as Green Seal, the Green Good Housekeeping seal, and Underwriters Laboratories’ UL Environment are helping, but each rating organization looks at things differently, and there’s a plethora of labels.

I hope these rating efforts achieve something close to market consensus and get up to some kind of critical mass this year. The FTC isn’t helping—it’s been foot-dragging for two years or more in its efforts to review and revise its “Green Guides” for environmental marketing. (If anyone knows how to get them moving, I’ll help you any way I can.)

The FTC’s inertia reminds me of a recent New Yorker cartoon in which an executive says to his colleagues, “Let’s never forget that the public’s desire for transparency has to be balanced by our need for concealment.”

I’m not that cynical, but as Joel Makower points out in the State of Green Business, change is coming about in no small part due to pressure from lawsuits, Congress, and activists. Companies need to step up, to be on a truly sustainable path, and to communicate credibly and transparently, all the time, not just when it serves their purpose.

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.

We are awash in eco-labels and certifications, as Sustainable Industries shows in its recent article, “The Great Eco-label Shakedown.” I’ve been tracking them for a while now, and I’m not even close to knowing about all of them—there are about 300 worldwide, as tallied by Big Room’s www.ecolabelling.org (and it’s not a comprehensive list).

Whether these stamps of approval are useful or just another method of greenwashing depends on the label’s credibility—and on how well people understand what the label means.

Many are calling for governmental oversight, as the article points out, and I’m in that camp. But that’s not going to happen soon, so until then marketers should be mindful of the credibility of product claims, including eco-labels.

Credibility requires that the eco-label represents third-party verification derived from well-defined guidelines and standards. The certifying organizations should communicate clearly what the standards are and how they verify adherence. (Excellent examples are William McDonough’s Cradle to Cradle, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and Scientific Certification Systems.)

Then that information needs to be passed on to the purchaser in an easily understood, digestible form. This is where the chain of information often breaks.

My own recent experience looking for printer paper is a case in point. The three big-box office supply stores (yes, I wish I could have shopped with a local stationer) stocked what I wanted: all-purpose, 20 lb. printer paper made from 100 percent post-consumer waste. I chose to buy my paper from the one store that advertised FSC-certified products and explained what that meant. It also pointed out that the Rainforest Alliance had endorsed the paper. (Note that none explained why post-consumer recycled content is preferable.)

I’d have been happy to go with the FSC certification alone. But I think companies (and marketers) have a responsibility to educate customers about sustainability issues until that knowledge becomes commonplace. It will help keep greenwashing to a minimum, and possibly bring customer loyalty to the brands and stores that take the time to educate.

I’m going to keep an eye on the different eco-labels, in particular their crediblity—how well they are (or aren’t) communicating what they do and how they do it, as well as governmental oversight efforts. I’ll post what I find out here.