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.

Clear, credible, complete communications about green products and services is in short supply, according to recent research by the Boston Consulting Group. In the report “Capturing the Green Advantage for Consumer Companies,” they write:

There is considerable confusion around the world about what being green really means. Because the industry lacks clear definition and standards, some companies have been able to make sweeping and unsubstantiated claims about their environmental credentials. That has caused many consumers to become skeptical about green products, and companies to become wary of offering them.”

Further, consumers don’t know how to tell if a product is green or what benefits it provides, researchers found. In seeking this information, people trust independent consumer reports most, followed by academic and scientific publications and family and friends. Manufacturers and retailers are less credible, but despite that, one-half to three-fourths of people surveyed said they rely on advertising and product labels for information, even though most don’t understand the labeling or mistrust it.

Companies need to step up with credible green claims, and show how and why green benefits are relevant. Otherwise, they’re missing a huge opportunity: Researchers estimate that companies lose nearly 20 percent of potential business when they fail to adequately inform consumers about green offerings. The consumers surveyed want to be green and sustainable and they value those benefits—but they are wary of greenwashing, and few are willing to pay more for green. “Both retailers and manufacturers need to improve consumers’ awareness of green products and the choices available,” concludes the report. 

Read more about the survey findings in BCG’s press release.