Halal Conformity Center Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 34% Credibility Score, Grade F

People deciding whether to rely on this certifier should not rely on this review score alone: HCC received a 34% Credibility Score, Grade F.

photorealistic editorial by USDHS Editorial Studio. Generated editorial artwork; depicted people or organizations are not identified as USDHS representatives.

Conformity assessment desk with organizational chart, certificate verification portal, scheme files, and unidentified personnel fields. — photorealistic editorial by USDHS Editorial Studio. Generated editorial artwork; depicted people or organizations are not identified as USDHS representatives.

What the public record shows

A halal certification process depends on people with the right skills, Islamic decision-making authority, an audit designed for halal requirements, an impartial final decision, and records that connect the certificate to the work performed. Halal Conformity Center (HCC) operates as a U.S.-based halal certification body with an office in Brooklyn, New York. It shares its address, personnel, and certificate-verification infrastructure with V-Cert Inc., a clean-label certification company [1] [2].

HCC says it was founded in 2011 and has certified more than 500 manufacturers in 28 countries [3]. It maintains a public certificate registry at verify.halalcc.org [4]. HCC also states that it does not hold national accreditations itself and instead relies on direct cooperation agreements with a network of partner bodies for international recognition [5].

Who this review assesses and what accreditation it could verify

The organization assessed in this review is Halal Conformity Center (HCC).

This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. HCC holds observer membership in the World Halal Food Council (WHFC) and is recognized by the Muslim Professionals Japan Association (MPJA) [6] [7]. Because qualifying current comprehensive independent accreditation was not verified, this assessment applied no accreditation-based assurance and based its scoring on direct evidence.

Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment

Halal Conformity Center (HCC) Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 34% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated

Moderate confidence. Halal Conformity Center (HCC) received a 34% Credibility Score, Grade F. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization, so the assessment relies on the available evidence about how HCC is organized and how it carries out certification. It also considered the information HCC makes public. Based on the material reviewed, the record does not provide enough support for a reader to rely on the score alone. An item not verified in the reviewed record is not proof that the control does not exist.

See the three numerical score components

Competence assurance: 31.6368 of 90
Accreditation breadth: 0.0000 of 4
Public accountability: 1.8900 of 6

How to read this result: The score measures what the reviewed evidence supports. Information that was missing or unclear was not treated as proof that a safeguard does not exist. This is not a ruling on every certificate, product, or facility.

USDHS Accreditation-Dominant Credibility Score version 4.1. Source cutoff September 15, 2026. Last reviewed September 15, 2026. Raw Credibility Score 33.5268 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 34%.

Category breakdown

Where this score came from

Each bar shows how much of that category the reviewed evidence supported. A short bar means important information was missing, unclear, or not independently verified; it does not prove that an internal safeguard does not exist.

1. Legal identity and standing 41.38%
2. Ownership and control 0.00%
3. Accountable leadership and governance 0.00%
4. Qualified personnel 0.00%
5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights 45.00%
6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls 45.09%
7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence 48.00%
8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope 72.18%
9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure 96.00%
10. Certificate traceability and mark control 96.00%
11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections 51.00%
12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity 46.50%

What stands out

What helps—and what gives us pause

These are the most important positive and cautionary findings in the reviewed record. They explain the score rather than creating extra bonus points or penalties.

What supports confidence

Public Certificate Registry
HCC maintains an excellent, open-access certificate verification portal (verify.halalcc.org), allowing buyers to instantly verify certificate scope and status without an account.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #10
Scoring treatment: Supports control and operational assurance.
Evidence boundary: Portal provides verification but does not establish underlying controls.
Sources: [4]
Documented Process
HCC publishes detailed, clear policies on its certification process, Shariah compliance, and impartiality structure.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #6, #7, #8
Scoring treatment: Supports control assurance.
Evidence boundary: Policies document processes but do not identify the individuals executing them.
Sources: [10] [12]

What needs caution

Hidden Personnel
HCC does not publish the names of its technical committee, auditors, and impartiality oversight personnel, making it impossible for the public to verify their competence or conflicts of interest.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #3, #4, #5
Scoring treatment: Limits public transparency scores.
Evidence boundary: Hidden personnel is a finding of unverified identity, not an allegation of fictitious identity.
Sources: [9]
No qualifying current comprehensive accreditation
HCC does not hold qualifying current comprehensive independent accreditation, relying instead on network recognition, which provides zero independent operational assurance of its internal controls.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10, #11, #12
Scoring treatment: Provides zero accreditation-derived control or operational assurance.
Evidence boundary: Network recognition does not replace qualifying current comprehensive accreditation.
Sources: [5] [6] [7]
Opaque Ownership
The exact legal entity, ownership structure, and corporate relationship with V-Cert Inc. are not publicly disclosed.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #2
Scoring treatment: Limits public transparency scores.
Evidence boundary: Missing ownership evidence is not proof of invalidity.
Sources: [1] [2]

How USDHS calculated the score and grade

Model B totals competence assurance from 0 to 90, proportional current exact-entity accreditation breadth from 0 to 4, and public accountability from 0 to 6. A current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation establishes competence within verified scope; affirmative contradictions reduce it requirement by requirement. Every qualifying authority contributes 0.8000 breadth points against the five-authority national benchmark, capped at four. Public accountability remains separate. The 137 requirement statuses remain visible as the evidence record. Classification bands: A, 90 to 100, strongly substantiated; B, 80 to 89, substantiated; C, 70 to 79, partially substantiated; D, 60 to 69, material gaps; F, 0 to 59, insufficiently substantiated.

Detailed evidence

Why each category received its result

1. Legal identity and standing
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the public can identify the organization behind the certificate and confirm that it is legally connected to the work. 7 checks had partial support, and 1 check remained unverified.
41.38% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
8 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
2.0691 of 5 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
Competence contribution
1.9191 of 4.5000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.1500 of 0.3000 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 2.1875 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 7 partial, 1 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 41.38 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 1.9191 competence + 0.1500 public accountability = 2.0691 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 1.C1 — partial: The certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC actively issues certificates and operates a public verification portal. However, 'Halal Conformity Center' is not clearly registered as a distinct corporate entity in New York public records, suggesting it may operate as a brand or program under V-Cert Inc., which shares the same address and personnel.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 1.C2 — partial: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC actively issues certificates and operates a public verification portal. However, 'Halal Conformity Center' is not clearly registered as a distinct corporate entity in New York public records, suggesting it may operate as a brand or program under V-Cert Inc., which shares the same address and personnel.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 1.C3 — partial: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC actively issues certificates and operates a public verification portal. However, 'Halal Conformity Center' is not clearly registered as a distinct corporate entity in New York public records, suggesting it may operate as a brand or program under V-Cert Inc., which shares the same address and personnel.
  Public sources: Source 1
4. Requirement 1.C4 — partial: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC actively issues certificates and operates a public verification portal. However, 'Halal Conformity Center' is not clearly registered as a distinct corporate entity in New York public records, suggesting it may operate as a brand or program under V-Cert Inc., which shares the same address and personnel.
  Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 1.O1 — not verified: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. No qualifying current comprehensive accreditation.
2. Requirement 1.O2 — partial: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC actively issues certificates and operates a public verification portal.
  Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 1.P1 — partial: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC operates at 2352 Coney Island Ave, Brooklyn, NY, the exact same address as V-Cert Inc. However, 'Halal Conformity Center' is not clearly registered as a distinct corporate entity in New York public records, suggesting it may operate as a brand or program under V-Cert Inc.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 1.P2 — partial: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC operates at 2352 Coney Island Ave, Brooklyn, NY, the exact same address as V-Cert Inc. However, 'Halal Conformity Center' is not clearly registered as a distinct corporate entity in New York public records, suggesting it may operate as a brand or program under V-Cert Inc.
  Public sources: Source 1
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
2. Ownership and control
What this means in plain English: This category asks who ultimately owns or controls the organization and whether related interests are clearly identified. None of the 9 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
9 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 8 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
Competence contribution
0.0000 of 7.2000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0000 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Ownership and control earns 0.0000 of 8 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 9 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 2.C1 — not verified: Ultimate owners or members are identified.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. The operational control appears integrated with V-Cert Inc. HCC's website does not disclose its ownership structure, beneficial owners, or legal control percentages.
2. Requirement 2.C2 — not verified: Ownership percentages or interests are established.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. The operational control appears integrated with V-Cert Inc. HCC's website does not disclose its ownership structure, beneficial owners, or legal control percentages.
3. Requirement 2.C3 — not verified: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. The operational control appears integrated with V-Cert Inc. HCC's website does not disclose its ownership structure, beneficial owners, or legal control percentages.
4. Requirement 2.C4 — not verified: Related entities that could affect control are identified.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. The operational control appears integrated with V-Cert Inc. HCC's website does not disclose its ownership structure, beneficial owners, or legal control percentages.
5. Requirement 2.C5 — not verified: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. The operational control appears integrated with V-Cert Inc. HCC's website does not disclose its ownership structure, beneficial owners, or legal control percentages.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 2.O1 — not verified: Ownership and control records are current, maintained, and available to an authorized verifier.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. The operational control appears integrated with V-Cert Inc.
2. Requirement 2.O2 — not verified: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. The operational control appears integrated with V-Cert Inc.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 2.P1 — not verified: Consumers can identify the controlling person or organization when ownership identity is part of the public accountability standard.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC's website does not disclose its ownership structure, beneficial owners, or legal control percentages.
2. Requirement 2.P2 — not verified: Private percentages, taxpayer data, signatures, and personal addresses need not be published when authoritative evidence establishes them.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC's website does not disclose its ownership structure, beneficial owners, or legal control percentages.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
3. Accountable leadership and governance
What this means in plain English: This category asks who is responsible for the certification program, how authority is assigned, and who is accountable for its decisions. None of the 10 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 14 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
Competence contribution
0.0000 of 12.6000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0000 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 0.0000 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 3.C1 — not verified: Senior leadership is identified.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes an organizational chart outlining its Executive Leadership, Shariah Board, and Technical Committee. However, HCC explicitly states on its website that it 'does not publish individual names,' meaning accountable leadership is not publicly verified.
2. Requirement 3.C2 — not verified: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes an organizational chart outlining its Executive Leadership, Shariah Board, and Technical Committee. However, HCC explicitly states on its website that it 'does not publish individual names,' meaning accountable leadership is not publicly verified.
3. Requirement 3.C3 — not verified: Certification decision authority is assigned.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes an organizational chart outlining its Executive Leadership, Shariah Board, and Technical Committee. However, HCC explicitly states on its website that it 'does not publish individual names,' meaning accountable leadership is not publicly verified.
4. Requirement 3.C4 — not verified: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes an organizational chart outlining its Executive Leadership, Shariah Board, and Technical Committee. However, HCC explicitly states on its website that it 'does not publish individual names,' meaning accountable leadership is not publicly verified.
5. Requirement 3.C5 — not verified: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes an organizational chart outlining its Executive Leadership, Shariah Board, and Technical Committee. However, HCC explicitly states on its website that it 'does not publish individual names,' meaning accountable leadership is not publicly verified.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 3.O1 — not verified: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes an organizational chart outlining its Executive Leadership, Shariah Board, and Technical Committee.
2. Requirement 3.O2 — not verified: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes an organizational chart outlining its Executive Leadership, Shariah Board, and Technical Committee.
3. Requirement 3.O3 — not verified: Management review and internal oversight occur.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes an organizational chart outlining its Executive Leadership, Shariah Board, and Technical Committee.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 3.P1 — not verified: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC explicitly states on its website that it 'does not publish individual names,' meaning accountable leadership is not publicly verified.
2. Requirement 3.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC explicitly states on its website that it 'does not publish individual names,' meaning accountable leadership is not publicly verified.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
4. Qualified personnel
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the people doing audits, reviews, and decisions are identified, qualified, authorized, and kept competent. None of the 14 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
14 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
Competence contribution
0.0000 of 16.2000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0000 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 0.0000 of 18 points. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 14 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 4.C1 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for technical auditors.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC claims to use multidisciplinary teams including food technologists and trained halal auditors. Because HCC 'does not publish individual names,' the identity, qualifications, and competence of its auditors and technical reviewers cannot be independently verified.
2. Requirement 4.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC claims to use multidisciplinary teams including food technologists and trained halal auditors. Because HCC 'does not publish individual names,' the identity, qualifications, and competence of its auditors and technical reviewers cannot be independently verified.
3. Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC claims to use multidisciplinary teams including food technologists and trained halal auditors. Because HCC 'does not publish individual names,' the identity, qualifications, and competence of its auditors and technical reviewers cannot be independently verified.
4. Requirement 4.C4 — not verified: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC claims to use multidisciplinary teams including food technologists and trained halal auditors. Because HCC 'does not publish individual names,' the identity, qualifications, and competence of its auditors and technical reviewers cannot be independently verified.
5. Requirement 4.C5 — not verified: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC claims to use multidisciplinary teams including food technologists and trained halal auditors. Because HCC 'does not publish individual names,' the identity, qualifications, and competence of its auditors and technical reviewers cannot be independently verified.
6. Requirement 4.C6 — not verified: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC claims to use multidisciplinary teams including food technologists and trained halal auditors. Because HCC 'does not publish individual names,' the identity, qualifications, and competence of its auditors and technical reviewers cannot be independently verified.
7. Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC claims to use multidisciplinary teams including food technologists and trained halal auditors. Because HCC 'does not publish individual names,' the identity, qualifications, and competence of its auditors and technical reviewers cannot be independently verified.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 4.O1 — not verified: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC claims to use multidisciplinary teams including food technologists and trained halal auditors.
2. Requirement 4.O2 — not verified: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC claims to use multidisciplinary teams including food technologists and trained halal auditors.
3. Requirement 4.O3 — not verified: Assignments match sector and scope competence.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC claims to use multidisciplinary teams including food technologists and trained halal auditors.
4. Requirement 4.O4 — not verified: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC claims to use multidisciplinary teams including food technologists and trained halal auditors.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 4.P1 — not verified: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. Because HCC 'does not publish individual names,' the identity, qualifications, and competence of its auditors and technical reviewers cannot be independently verified.
2. Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. Because HCC 'does not publish individual names,' the identity, qualifications, and competence of its auditors and technical reviewers cannot be independently verified.
3. Requirement 4.P3 — not verified: Private personnel files, degree numbers, and every assignment record need not be published when accreditation verifies competence.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. No qualifying current comprehensive accreditation.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights
What this means in plain English: This category asks who provides the Islamic review, what authority that person or body has, and who makes the final halal decision. 9 checks had partial support, and 2 checks remained unverified.
45.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
11 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
8.1000 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
Competence contribution
8.1000 of 16.2000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0000 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 7.6500 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 9 partial, 2 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 45.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 8.1000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 8.1000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 5.C1 — partial: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC maintains a Shariah Board to rule on permissibility. External records identify Mufti Abdul Sattar Madani as the Head of the Shariah Board, but HCC's official website does not publish the names of its Islamic authorities.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 5.C2 — partial: Muslim decision makers are used where required.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC maintains a Shariah Board to rule on permissibility. External records identify Mufti Abdul Sattar Madani as the Head of the Shariah Board, but HCC's official website does not publish the names of its Islamic authorities.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 5.C3 — partial: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC maintains a Shariah Board to rule on permissibility. External records identify Mufti Abdul Sattar Madani as the Head of the Shariah Board, but HCC's official website does not publish the names of its Islamic authorities.
  Public sources: Source 1
4. Requirement 5.C4 — partial: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC maintains a Shariah Board to rule on permissibility. External records identify Mufti Abdul Sattar Madani as the Head of the Shariah Board, but HCC's official website does not publish the names of its Islamic authorities.
  Public sources: Source 1
5. Requirement 5.C5 — partial: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC maintains a Shariah Board to rule on permissibility. External records identify Mufti Abdul Sattar Madani as the Head of the Shariah Board, but HCC's official website does not publish the names of its Islamic authorities.
  Public sources: Source 1
6. Requirement 5.C6 — partial: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC maintains a Shariah Board to rule on permissibility. External records identify Mufti Abdul Sattar Madani as the Head of the Shariah Board, but HCC's official website does not publish the names of its Islamic authorities.
  Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 5.O1 — partial: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. External records identify Mufti Abdul Sattar Madani as the Head of the Shariah Board.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 5.O2 — partial: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. External records identify Mufti Abdul Sattar Madani as the Head of the Shariah Board.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 5.O3 — partial: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. External records identify Mufti Abdul Sattar Madani as the Head of the Shariah Board.
  Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 5.P1 — not verified: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. No specific public evidence provided.
2. Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. No specific public evidence provided.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls
What this means in plain English: This category asks what the certifier actually checks, what halal-specific evidence it records, and how findings lead to approval, follow-up, or withdrawal. 1 check was fully supported, 13 checks had partial support, and 1 check remained unverified.
45.09% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
15 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
6.3124 of 14 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
Competence contribution
5.6824 of 12.6000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.6300 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 6.9417 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 13 partial, 1 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 45.09 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 5.6824 competence + 0.6300 public accountability = 6.3124 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 6.C1 — partial: Application and application review are controlled.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a detailed six-stage certification process (Apply, Scoping, Audit, Review, Issuance, Re-audit) and outlines its audit methodology and scheme requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 6.C2 — partial: The audit program and audit time are determined by scope, risk, complexity, sites, and prior results.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a detailed six-stage certification process (Apply, Scoping, Audit, Review, Issuance, Re-audit) and outlines its audit methodology and scheme requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 6.C3 — partial: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a detailed six-stage certification process (Apply, Scoping, Audit, Review, Issuance, Re-audit) and outlines its audit methodology and scheme requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
4. Requirement 6.C4 — partial: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a detailed six-stage certification process (Apply, Scoping, Audit, Review, Issuance, Re-audit) and outlines its audit methodology and scheme requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
5. Requirement 6.C5 — partial: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a detailed six-stage certification process (Apply, Scoping, Audit, Review, Issuance, Re-audit) and outlines its audit methodology and scheme requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
6. Requirement 6.C6 — partial: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a detailed six-stage certification process (Apply, Scoping, Audit, Review, Issuance, Re-audit) and outlines its audit methodology and scheme requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
7. Requirement 6.C7 — partial: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a detailed six-stage certification process (Apply, Scoping, Audit, Review, Issuance, Re-audit) and outlines its audit methodology and scheme requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
8. Requirement 6.C8 — partial: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a detailed six-stage certification process (Apply, Scoping, Audit, Review, Issuance, Re-audit) and outlines its audit methodology and scheme requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
9. Requirement 6.C9 — partial: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a detailed six-stage certification process (Apply, Scoping, Audit, Review, Issuance, Re-audit) and outlines its audit methodology and scheme requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
10. Requirement 6.C10 — partial: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a detailed six-stage certification process (Apply, Scoping, Audit, Review, Issuance, Re-audit) and outlines its audit methodology and scheme requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 6.O1 — partial: The current certification system implements each applicable control.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a detailed six-stage certification process and outlines its audit methodology and scheme requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 6.O2 — not verified: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. No qualifying current comprehensive accreditation.
3. Requirement 6.O3 — partial: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a detailed six-stage certification process and outlines its audit methodology and scheme requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 6.P1 — fulfilled: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.
  Evidence route: Public source. HCC publishes a detailed six-stage certification process (Apply, Scoping, Audit, Review, Issuance, Re-audit) and outlines its audit methodology and scheme requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 6.P2 — partial: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.
  Evidence route: Public source. The scheme and scope are documented on the certificate and public registry, and suspension or withdrawal controls are part of the process.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence
What this means in plain English: This category asks how the organization prevents commercial interests, consulting work, or personal conflicts from controlling certification decisions. 1 check was fully supported, 9 checks had partial support, and 1 check remained unverified.
48.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
11 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
2.8800 of 6 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
Competence contribution
2.7000 of 5.4000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.1800 of 0.3600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Impartiality, conflicts, and independence earns 3.0000 of 6 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 9 partial, 1 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 48.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 2.7000 competence + 0.1800 public accountability = 2.8800 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 7.C1 — partial: An impartiality policy and risk process exist.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC's governance structure separates the auditor, technical reviewer, Shariah reviewer, and final decision-maker. The impartiality policy is published, though the individuals enforcing it are unnamed.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 7.C2 — partial: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC's governance structure separates the auditor, technical reviewer, Shariah reviewer, and final decision-maker. The impartiality policy is published, though the individuals enforcing it are unnamed.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 7.C3 — partial: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC's governance structure separates the auditor, technical reviewer, Shariah reviewer, and final decision-maker. The impartiality policy is published, though the individuals enforcing it are unnamed.
  Public sources: Source 1
4. Requirement 7.C4 — partial: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC's governance structure separates the auditor, technical reviewer, Shariah reviewer, and final decision-maker. The impartiality policy is published, though the individuals enforcing it are unnamed.
  Public sources: Source 1
5. Requirement 7.C5 — partial: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC's governance structure separates the auditor, technical reviewer, Shariah reviewer, and final decision-maker. The impartiality policy is published, though the individuals enforcing it are unnamed.
  Public sources: Source 1
6. Requirement 7.C6 — partial: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC's governance structure separates the auditor, technical reviewer, Shariah reviewer, and final decision-maker. The impartiality policy is published, though the individuals enforcing it are unnamed.
  Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 7.O1 — partial: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. The impartiality policy is published, though the individuals enforcing it are unnamed.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 7.O2 — partial: Conflicts and recusals are documented.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. The impartiality policy is published, though the individuals enforcing it are unnamed.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 7.O3 — partial: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. The impartiality policy is published, though the individuals enforcing it are unnamed.
  Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 7.P1 — fulfilled: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.
  Evidence route: Public source. The impartiality policy is published. HCC publishes a defined appeals and complaints process, and the policy and contact methods are publicly available.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. No specific public evidence provided.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope
What this means in plain English: This category asks which current rules govern the certification, what products and facilities they cover, and where the limits or exclusions are. 6 checks were fully supported, and 4 checks had partial support.
72.18% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
2.1653 of 3 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
Competence contribution
1.9853 of 2.7000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.1800 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 2.3250 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 6 fulfilled, 4 partial.
Why this metric earned 72.18 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 1.9853 competence + 0.1800 public accountability = 2.1653 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 8.C1 — fulfilled: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. Public disclosures establish that HCC certifies against and uses the OIC/SMIIC 1:2019 standard.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 8.C2 — fulfilled: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.
  Evidence route: Public source. Public disclosures establish that scope is determined by the nature of the product and recorded on the certificate and public registry.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 8.C3 — partial: Exclusions and limitations are defined.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC outlines specific schemes for food, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and chemicals. Scheme scopes and industry coverage are clearly published.
  Public sources: Source 1
4. Requirement 8.C4 — fulfilled: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. Public disclosures acknowledge destination market rules as supplementary requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
5. Requirement 8.C5 — fulfilled: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.
  Evidence route: Public source. Public disclosures establish a precedence rule where destination market rules take precedence for certain criteria.
  Public sources: Source 1
6. Requirement 8.C6 — partial: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC outlines specific schemes for food, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and chemicals. Scheme scopes and industry coverage are clearly published.
  Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 8.O1 — partial: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. Scheme scopes and industry coverage are clearly published.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 8.O2 — partial: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. Scheme scopes and industry coverage are clearly published.
  Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 8.P1 — fulfilled: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.
  Evidence route: Public source. HCC outlines specific schemes for food, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and chemicals. Scheme scopes and industry coverage are clearly published.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 8.P2 — fulfilled: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.
  Evidence route: Public source. Public disclosures state that destination market rules take precedence for certain criteria, such as stunning, to ensure market acceptance, establishing how conflicts are resolved.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether an ordinary reader can find the certifier’s practical halal rules and understand the positions behind its approvals. All 20 checks were supported by the reviewed evidence.
96.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
20 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
7.6800 of 8 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
Competence contribution
7.2000 of 7.2000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.4800 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 8.0000 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 20 fulfilled.
Why this metric earned 96.00 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 7.2000 competence + 0.4800 public accountability = 7.6800 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 9.C1 — fulfilled: The public disclosure is authorized, versioned, dated, and controlled.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. A substantially complete controlled public criteria set was verified with limited publication-control gaps.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 9.C2 — fulfilled: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. A substantially complete controlled public criteria set was verified with limited publication-control gaps.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 9.C3 — fulfilled: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. A substantially complete controlled public criteria set was verified with limited publication-control gaps.
  Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 9.O1 — fulfilled: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. Multiple current operational samples consistently apply and communicate the disclosed criteria.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 9.O2 — fulfilled: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. Multiple current operational samples consistently apply and communicate the disclosed criteria.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 9.O3 — fulfilled: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. Multiple current operational samples consistently apply and communicate the disclosed criteria.
  Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 9.P1 — fulfilled: Religious or jurisprudential basis.
  Evidence route: Public source. Determinations are grounded in established Islamic jurisprudence, drawing on recognized schools of thought, with final authority held by the Shariah Board.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 9.P2 — fulfilled: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.
  Evidence route: Public source. Destination market rules take precedence for certain criteria, such as stunning, to ensure market acceptance.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 9.P3 — fulfilled: Mechanical poultry slaughter.
  Evidence route: Public source. Automated or mechanical poultry lines can be certified if a Muslim slaughterman recites the invocation, the line speed allows a complete cut, and a backup slaughterman hand-slaughters missed birds.
  Public sources: Source 1
4. Requirement 9.P4 — fulfilled: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.
  Evidence route: Public source. Requires a Muslim slaughterman to recite the invocation over the mechanical blade.
  Public sources: Source 1
5. Requirement 9.P5 — fulfilled: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.
  Evidence route: Public source. Slaughter must be performed by a Muslim, and a backup slaughterman is required on mechanical lines.
  Public sources: Source 1
6. Requirement 9.P6 — fulfilled: Stunning and reversibility.
  Evidence route: Public source. Allows reversible stunning only. The animal must be alive and able to recover if not slaughtered. The exact parameters depend on destination market rules.
  Public sources: Source 1
7. Requirement 9.P7 — fulfilled: Alive-at-cut control.
  Evidence route: Public source. The animal must be alive at the time of slaughter.
  Public sources: Source 1
8. Requirement 9.P8 — fulfilled: Minimum vessel requirement.
  Evidence route: Public source. Requires a complete cut of the trachea, esophagus, and both jugular veins/carotid arteries.
  Public sources: Source 1
9. Requirement 9.P9 — fulfilled: Pork and animal derivatives.
  Evidence route: Public source. Pork and its derivatives are strictly prohibited.
  Public sources: Source 1
10. Requirement 9.P10 — fulfilled: Alcohol and ethanol.
  Evidence route: Public source. Trace amounts of ethanol from natural fermentation or as a carrier solvent may be permitted, depending on origin, function, and residual level.
  Public sources: Source 1
11. Requirement 9.P11 — fulfilled: Processing aids and ingredient sources.
  Evidence route: Public source. Every ingredient, additive, and processing aid must be documented to its source, including animal-derived and fermentation-derived inputs.
  Public sources: Source 1
12. Requirement 9.P12 — fulfilled: Shared lines and cross-contact.
  Evidence route: Public source. Shared lines are allowed if Halal production is protected by dedicated lines or validated cleaning and changeover, with segregated storage.
  Public sources: Source 1
13. Requirement 9.P13 — fulfilled: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.
  Evidence route: Public source. Requires validated cleaning procedures that demonstrate the removal of previous product residues.
  Public sources: Source 1
14. Requirement 9.P14 — fulfilled: Certificate-level position communication.
  Evidence route: Public source. Scope is determined by the nature of the product, Shariah requirements, risk of cross-contamination, and documented controls. It is recorded on the certificate and public registry.
  Public sources: Source 1
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
10. Certificate traceability and mark control
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether a certificate can be checked for its holder, site, scope, dates, and current status, and whether misuse of the mark is controlled. All 10 checks were supported by the reviewed evidence.
96.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
2.8800 of 3 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
Competence contribution
2.7000 of 2.7000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.1800 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 3.0000 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 10 fulfilled.
Why this metric earned 96.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 2.7000 competence + 0.1800 public accountability = 2.8800 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 10.C1 — fulfilled: Certificate templates contain required issuer, holder, site, product or activity scope, identifier, issue date, expiry date, and authorization.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC operates a live, functional public certificate verification portal (verify.halalcc.org) where anyone can check the status and scope of a certificate using its ID.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 10.C2 — fulfilled: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC operates a live, functional public certificate verification portal (verify.halalcc.org) where anyone can check the status and scope of a certificate using its ID.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 10.C3 — fulfilled: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC operates a live, functional public certificate verification portal (verify.halalcc.org) where anyone can check the status and scope of a certificate using its ID.
  Public sources: Source 1
4. Requirement 10.C4 — fulfilled: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC operates a live, functional public certificate verification portal (verify.halalcc.org) where anyone can check the status and scope of a certificate using its ID.
  Public sources: Source 1
5. Requirement 10.C5 — fulfilled: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC operates a live, functional public certificate verification portal (verify.halalcc.org) where anyone can check the status and scope of a certificate using its ID.
  Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 10.O1 — fulfilled: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. Anyone can check the status and scope of a certificate using its ID on verify.halalcc.org.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 10.O2 — fulfilled: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. Anyone can check the status and scope of a certificate using its ID on verify.halalcc.org.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 10.O3 — fulfilled: Directory and status records are maintained.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. Anyone can check the status and scope of a certificate using its ID on verify.halalcc.org.
  Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 10.P1 — fulfilled: Consumers can verify current certificate status through a working HTTPS route, searchable directory, QR destination, or equivalent accessible mechanism.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. Anyone can check the status and scope of a certificate using its ID on verify.halalcc.org.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 10.P2 — fulfilled: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. Anyone can check the status and scope of a certificate using its ID on verify.halalcc.org.
  Public sources: Source 1
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether people can challenge a decision, report a problem, receive an independent review, and see appropriate corrective action. 2 checks were fully supported, and 8 checks had partial support.
51.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.5100 of 1 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
Competence contribution
0.4500 of 0.9000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0600 of 0.0600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.5750 of 1 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 2 fulfilled, 8 partial.
Why this metric earned 51.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.4500 competence + 0.0600 public accountability = 0.5100 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 11.C1 — partial: Complaints and appeals have documented procedures.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a defined appeals and complaints process, and the policy and contact methods are publicly available.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 11.C2 — partial: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a defined appeals and complaints process, and the policy and contact methods are publicly available.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 11.C3 — partial: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a defined appeals and complaints process, and the policy and contact methods are publicly available.
  Public sources: Source 1
4. Requirement 11.C4 — partial: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a defined appeals and complaints process, and the policy and contact methods are publicly available.
  Public sources: Source 1
5. Requirement 11.C5 — partial: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. HCC publishes a defined appeals and complaints process, and the policy and contact methods are publicly available.
  Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 11.O1 — partial: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. The policy and contact methods are publicly available.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 11.O2 — partial: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. The policy and contact methods are publicly available.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 11.O3 — partial: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. The policy and contact methods are publicly available.
  Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 11.P1 — fulfilled: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.
  Evidence route: Public source. The policy and contact methods are publicly available.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 11.P2 — fulfilled: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.
  Evidence route: Public source. The policy and contact methods are publicly available.
  Public sources: Source 1
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the organization has a verifiable operating record and enough qualified people and resources for the certification work it claims to perform. 1 check was fully supported, 6 checks had partial support, and 2 checks remained unverified.
46.50% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
9 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.9300 of 2 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
Competence contribution
0.9000 of 1.8000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0300 of 0.1200 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 0.9250 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 6 partial, 2 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 46.50 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.9000 competence + 0.0300 public accountability = 0.9300 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 12.C1 — partial: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. While HCC claims to have been founded in 2011, its tight integration with V-Cert Inc. (launched in 2026) suggests recent restructuring. Current certification activity is verifiable.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 12.C2 — partial: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. While HCC claims to have been founded in 2011, its tight integration with V-Cert Inc. (launched in 2026) suggests recent restructuring. Current certification activity is verifiable.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 12.C3 — partial: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. While HCC claims to have been founded in 2011, its tight integration with V-Cert Inc. (launched in 2026) suggests recent restructuring. Current certification activity is verifiable.
  Public sources: Source 1
4. Requirement 12.C4 — partial: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. While HCC claims to have been founded in 2011, its tight integration with V-Cert Inc. (launched in 2026) suggests recent restructuring. Current certification activity is verifiable.
  Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 12.O1 — not verified: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. No qualifying current comprehensive accreditation.
2. Requirement 12.O2 — fulfilled: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.
  Evidence route: Public source. HCC maintains a public certificate registry at verify.halalcc.org, which documents active clients and certification activity.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 12.O3 — partial: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. Current certification activity is verifiable.
  Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 12.P1 — partial: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.
  Evidence route: Public source. Operating history and current service scope are identifiable, though accountable leadership details are lacking.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
2. Requirement 12.P2 — not verified: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.
  Evidence route: Direct evidence. No qualifying current comprehensive accreditation.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.

Bottom line

What you should know

What the evidence supports

HCC’s public explanation of its certification criteria and halal positions was fully documented in this review.
Its public information for tracing certificates and controlling use of its mark was also fully documented.
Its published information on standards, certification scheme, and scope was largely documented, with some gaps.

What should make you cautious

The reviewed record did not establish the information needed to verify qualified personnel; the requirement table identifies each affected item and its evidence route.
The reviewed record did not establish the information needed to verify accountable leadership and governance; the requirement table identifies each affected item and its evidence route.
The reviewed record did not establish the information needed to verify Islamic authority and halal decision rights; the requirement table identifies each affected item and its evidence route.

What evidence could change this view

What current, verifiable records would clarify ownership and control?
What current, verifiable records would clarify accountable leadership and governance?
What current, verifiable records would clarify qualified personnel?

View the original requirement-level questions

What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the finding for requirement 1.C1 under the published methodology?
What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the finding for requirement 1.C2 under the published methodology?
What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the finding for requirement 1.C3 under the published methodology?
What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the finding for requirement 1.C4 under the published methodology?
What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the finding for requirement 1.O1 under the published methodology?
What additional independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the finding for requirement 1.O2 under the published methodology?

Credibility Score interpretation

Model B assigns 31.6368 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.0000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 1.8900 of 6 public-accountability points.
No qualifying current comprehensive exact-entity accreditation was applied; competence is normalized from the same control and operational requirement evidence used across the national set, and accreditation breadth is zero.
Recognition, commercial approval, membership, affiliate credentials, expired credentials, and scope that does not cover the assessed work do not qualify as current exact-entity accreditation breadth.
Missing public information means the reviewed public record did not establish the disclosure; it is not proof that an undisclosed internal control does not exist.

Material records are rescored under the same rules, whether they raise or lower the result. Privately share information or evidence. Evidence-source names and contact details are not exposed publicly. An authorized representative may separately claim this certification body with qualifying documents. A verified claim does not confer editorial control or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, ranking, or certification status.

Read the full legal and evidence boundary

This organizational accountability assessment measures evidence supporting identity, control, responsible people, Islamic authority, halal-specific work, standards, public certification criteria, certificate controls, correction access, and demonstrated operations. Each of 137 enumerated subrequirements is shown below. A not-verified finding means the reviewed record did not establish the item; it is not proof that the control does not exist, that wrongdoing occurred, or that every certificate is invalid. Private evidence is described only at a non-identifying level. The existing series label is editorial branding and is not itself an allegation. Flags explain evidence already scored inside the twelve fixed metrics and create no separate bonus or penalty. The assessment is not a religious ruling, legal judgment, fraud finding, guarantee, or declaration that every certificate is valid or invalid. An undisclosed item is not treated as proof that no internal control exists.

Conclusion

Halal Conformity Center received a 34% Credibility Score, Grade F. It operates a working public certificate registry and documents its certification process, but this review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization, and HCC does not publicly identify its accountable leadership or technical personnel.

This accountability assessment uses the published USDHS methodology as a framework for reviewing evidence. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard or make a religious ruling about every certificate or product.

What HCC publicly says about its certification rules and halal positions

This disclosure review asks a different question from accreditation: can an ordinary consumer identify the standard or certification scheme, its current version, the authority that approves it, and the important halal positions that guide this body’s certifications? The public material makes the main positions understandable, although there are limited gaps.

The reviewed sources say that HCC certifies to the OIC/SMIIC 1:2019 standard and requires strict traceability and processing controls. They say HCC uses OIC/SMIIC 1:2019; bases determinations on established Islamic jurisprudence and recognized schools of thought, with final authority held by the Shariah Board; and sets scope according to the product, Shariah requirements, cross-contamination risk, and documented controls. The scope is recorded on the certificate and public registry. For certain criteria, such as stunning, destination-market rules take precedence to support market acceptance. Certificates have a unique ID that can be checked online to show their scope, status, and validity, and HCC publishes every issued certificate on its public registry at verify.halalcc.org. [16] [5] [10] [15] [17] [20] [13]

The reviewed sources say that automated or mechanical poultry lines can be certified when a Muslim slaughterman recites the invocation, the line speed permits a complete cut, and a backup slaughterman hand-slaughters birds missed by the line. They also say HCC requires a Muslim slaughterman to recite the invocation over the mechanical blade; permits only reversible stunning, meaning the animal must be alive and able to recover if it is not slaughtered; and varies the exact parameters according to destination-market rules. The animal must be alive at slaughter. The cut must fully sever the trachea, esophagus, and both jugular veins/carotid arteries. Slaughter must be performed by a Muslim, and mechanical lines require a backup slaughterman. [22] [17]

The reviewed sources say that pork and its derivatives are strictly prohibited. They say trace amounts of ethanol from natural fermentation or a carrier solvent may be permitted depending on its origin, function, and residual level. Every ingredient, additive, and processing aid must be documented back to its source, including animal-derived and fermentation-derived inputs. Shared lines are allowed when halal production is protected by dedicated lines or validated cleaning and changeover procedures, with segregated storage. The sources also require validated cleaning procedures that show prior product residues have been removed. [23] [18] [17]

This disclosure measure asks whether a position is publicly understandable, not whether it is the most restrictive possible position. A position that is disclosed and falls within a recognized scholarly range is not penalized simply because another body follows a different view.

Evidence that could address the remaining gaps

This section describes the evidence that could support a higher score for Halal Conformity Center. It does not mean a control is absent merely because the reviewed public record did not establish it. Any submission must match the exact assessed entity, state its dates and scope, and show who was responsible for putting it into practice and making decisions.

Records may be public or submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Private records can support evidence about controls or operations when they can be authenticated, but they do not count as public-transparency evidence unless the organization makes the important information public.

Metric 1 — Legal identity and operating status: A current record from an authoritative registry or regulator for Halal Conformity Center that shows its exact legal name, entity number, jurisdiction, formation date, active status, operating name, and any required certification-business registration not already established.
Metric 2 — Ownership and control: A current authoritative ownership filing or authenticated controlled record for Halal Conformity Center that identifies beneficial owners, ownership percentages, voting or governance rights, controlling persons, related entities, and conflict controls for the exact assessed entity.
Metric 3 — Governance and accountable leadership: A current Halal Conformity Center governing-body roster and organizational chart that identifies accountable leaders, their roles, the basis for their appointment or authority, management responsibilities, and who is accountable at the entity level for certification decisions.
Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: A current Halal Conformity Center personnel roster or independently assessed controlled record that identifies auditors, technical experts, reviewers, contractors, qualifications, sector experience, halal and audit training, authorization scope, assignments, monitoring, and competence review.
Metric 5 — Islamic authority and halal decision: Current Halal Conformity Center records that identify the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, their qualifications and appointment, the jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, entity-level authority, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
Metric 6 — Halal audit method and facility verification: A current controlled Halal Conformity Center audit procedure and recent supporting files that show application and scope review, ingredient and process evaluation, on-site work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
Metric 7 — Impartiality and decision separation: A current Halal Conformity Center policy on impartiality and keeping decisions separate, with implementation records identifying conflict review, separation from consultancy, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and the certification decision.
Metric 8 — Standards, scheme, and certification scope: A current Halal Conformity Center standard or scheme record that identifies the version, effective date, covered sectors and locations, exclusions, supplementary schemes, rules for resolving conflicts between schemes, certificate scope, and the responsible issuing entity.
Metric 9 — Public certification criteria and position disclosure: A current public Halal Conformity Center declaration or equivalent methodology that covers the governing standard and version, religious basis, scope and exclusions, practical halal positions, precedence among supplementary schemes, certificate communication, and the public verification route.
Metric 10 — Certificate traceability and mark control: A current public Halal Conformity Center certificate directory or verification method that shows the certificate identifier, holder, site, products or scope, effective and expiry dates, live status, suspension or withdrawal, and enforceable controls on use or misuse of the mark.
Metric 11 — Complaints, appeals, and corrections: A current public Halal Conformity Center procedure for complaints, appeals, and corrections that identifies ways to submit a matter, acknowledgement and response timing, independent review, records, re-examination, corrective action, and non-retaliation or equivalent fairness protections.
Metric 12 — Operating history and demonstrated capacity: Current independently verifiable Halal Conformity Center operating records showing its timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and personnel capacity matched to that workload.

Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body

Halal Conformity Center (HCC) or another affected party may submit responsive records through the secure documentary-evidence form. Material evidence is evaluated under the same methodology whether it raises or lowers the Credibility Score.

An authorized representative may also use Claim this certification body. The person making the claim must document their identity, role, and authority to act for the exact assessed entity. That authority must be verified with qualifying documentation and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim remains private and pending until it is reviewed. It does not give editorial control, reveal other submissions, or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, or ranking.

A correction request should identify the exact entity, statement, metric, source, effective dates, scope, responsible people, and requested correction. Publication does not depend on a response, and no organization has a private veto over a documented finding.

Frequently asked questions

Why did Halal Conformity Center receive a 34% Credibility Score, Grade F?

The assessment gives substantial weight to evidence of accountable leadership, qualified personnel, Islamic decision-making authority, and halal-specific audit capability. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization, and HCC does not publish the names of its accountable leaders and technical personnel. Those areas therefore received low results.

Could this review verify current independent accreditation for HCC?

This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. HCC relies on network recognition, which did not provide independent operational assurance of its internal controls in this assessment.

Does a low score mean every certificate is invalid?

No. This assessment reviews structural accountability, transparency, and verifiable credentials. It does not decide the religious validity of specific products.

Why does the review not rely only on private documents?

The methodology uses public records and evidence that can be publicly verified. It also allows HCC to submit responsive controlled documents through the secure documentary-evidence form.

What could support a higher score?

Publishing complete ownership information and clear personnel authorizations, and obtaining qualifying current comprehensive independent accreditation, could support a higher score.

References

View the controlling HIPS publication

Related audit-readiness guidance

Browse all USDHS Insights

Halal Conformity Center Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 34% Credibility Score, Grade F

What the public record shows

Who this review assesses and what accreditation it could verify

Halal Conformity Center (HCC) Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 34% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated

Where this score came from

What helps—and what gives us pause

What supports confidence

Public Certificate Registry

Documented Process

What needs caution

Hidden Personnel

No qualifying current comprehensive accreditation

Opaque Ownership

Why each category received its result

1. Legal identity and standing

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

2. Ownership and control

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

3. Accountable leadership and governance

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

4. Qualified personnel

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

10. Certificate traceability and mark control

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

What you should know

What the evidence supports

What should make you cautious

What evidence could change this view

Credibility Score interpretation

Conclusion

What HCC publicly says about its certification rules and halal positions

Evidence that could address the remaining gaps

Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body

Frequently asked questions

Why did Halal Conformity Center receive a 34% Credibility Score, Grade F?

Could this review verify current independent accreditation for HCC?

Does a low score mean every certificate is invalid?

Why does the review not rely only on private documents?

What could support a higher score?

References

Related audit-readiness guidance