IS EG Halal Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 37% Credibility Score, Grade F

The practical verdict is that the available record does not provide enough documented accountability for a reader to rely on IS EG Halal’s certification alone.

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

Evidence-review desk with three separate regional accreditation folders, a distinct global organization file, scope boundaries, and an eleven-position assessment grid. — photorealistic editorial by USDHS Editorial Studio. Generated editorial artwork; depicted people or organizations are not identified as USDHS representatives.

Quick Summary

Score: 37%
Grade: F
Evidence result: Insufficiently substantiated

The practical verdict is that the available record does not provide enough documented accountability for a reader to rely on IS EG Halal’s certification alone. IS EG Halal received a 37% score and Grade F. Known strengths include identifiable New Jersey companies, named executives, published procedures, Egyptian market authorization, and regional accreditation for separately named Latin American and Indian entities. The result is limited by an incomplete ownership and legal-control picture, unidentified people responsible for audits, Islamic review, and final decisions, limited public certificate traceability, and limited operating evidence. These gaps matter because buyers and consumers cannot fully see who is responsible for a certificate or verify how the system works.

Why certification bodies need clear accountability

A halal certification body may gain authority through government approval, accreditation for a particular organization and scope, or commercial recognition from buyers. These are different reasons to place confidence in a body. Consumers and businesses still need to know who owns the organization, who is qualified to audit, who has Islamic decision-making authority, how conflicts are controlled, and whether a certificate’s status can be checked.

IS EG’s history makes these questions especially concrete. In 2019, Egypt retained the New Jersey company as the sole approved U.S. certifier in a process that USDA said could disrupt markets and increase costs. A later federal case resulted in an adjudicated conviction and sentence connected to the monopoly. At the same time, current records show detailed procedures and genuine regional accreditation for separately named entities. A fair assessment must consider all of these facts without treating historical misconduct as proof against every current worker or certificate. [14] [16]

This comprehensive article therefore brings together the investigation and the standardized rating. The legal history, regional accreditation, public procedures, current evidence gaps, positive flags, and negative flags are included in the measures they actually affect. A fact does not receive an additional benefit or penalty merely because it is also summarized as a flag.

IS EG’s organization and why its structure matters

IS EG Halal operates through a network of legal entities and offices. New Jersey’s official registry identifies IS EG Halal Certified, Inc. and IS EG Halal Holdings Inc. as separate domestic profit corporations formed in 2017 and 2023. DOJ records substantiate Wael Hana’s historical operating control and Fred Daibes’s financial backing. IS EG identifies Rena Zebi as chief executive officer, Nicholas D’Alessio as vice president, and Hana as Chief Advisor. [13] [18] [19]

These records establish that real entities exist, that consequential historical relationships existed, and that current management roles are named. They do not disclose current ownership percentages, every shareholder, adviser authority, voting rights, related-party controls, or the full legal relationship among the U.S., Uruguay, Brazil, India, Egypt, and other offices.

IS EG’s current public materials also set out detailed procedures for certification, impartiality, sanctions, complaints, appeals, and its halal scheme. The organization therefore receives substantial credit for how its processes are designed. The main gap is that the current people responsible for technical audit, Islamic review, technical review, and final certification decisions are not identified for the assessed U.S. and global organization. [1] [2] [3] [5] [6] [7]

Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment

IS EG Halal Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 37% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated

Moderate confidence. IS EG Halal receives a 37% Credibility Score (Grade F). This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. The available record supports that IS EG is an operating network with identifiable entities, named executives, published procedures, Egyptian market authorization, and regional accreditation for separately named offices. However, it does not sufficiently establish the full ownership and legal-control structure, the current qualified people responsible for audits and halal decisions, public certificate traceability, or evidence that the documented procedures are operating across the assessed U.S. and global organization. Those limits mean the record does not support relying on the rating alone.

See the three numerical score components

Competence assurance: 34.4579 of 90
Accreditation breadth: 0.0000 of 4
Public accountability: 2.5307 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 36.9886 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 37%.

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 72.00%
2. Ownership and control 0.00%
3. Accountable leadership and governance 33.26%
4. Qualified personnel 28.23%
5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights 21.18%
6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls 63.71%
7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence 53.65%
8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope 37.59%
9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure 56.75%
10. Certificate traceability and mark control 39.62%
11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections 56.82%
12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity 13.85%

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

U.S. legal entities, leadership roles, and operating history are publicly identifiable
New Jersey, USDA, DOJ, Dutch government, IS EG, and accreditation records identify operating entities, current executive roles, historical control, Egyptian market activity, and multi-country operations.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #2, #3, #12
Scoring treatment: Supports partial-to-strong operational and public-evidence credit for legal identity, control context, named leadership, and demonstrated activity.
Evidence boundary: The records do not establish exact current ownership percentages, every shareholder, complete intercompany control, or the worldwide staffing and workload denominator.
Sources: [1] [13] [14] [16] [17] [18] [19]
The public certification and accountability procedures are unusually detailed
IS EG publishes requirements for application review, two-stage audits, onsite work, technical and Islamic roles, corrective action, surveillance, impartiality, certification decisions, sanctions, complaints, and appeals.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10, #11
Scoring treatment: Supports control-assurance and public-evidence credit for documented system design while operational factors remain limited to observed implementation.
Evidence boundary: A procedure does not identify the current people, appointments, file assignments, committee records, signed decisions, complaint outcomes, or proof that every file follows the process.
Sources: [2] [3] [5] [6] [7]
Regional accreditation is real, current, and independently verifiable within exact scopes
ENAS and NABCB publish qualifying current comprehensive accreditation records for separately named Uruguay, Brazil, and India legal entities, with standards, dates, offices, product scopes, and a recorded India interruption.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10, #11, #12
Scoring treatment: Supports context and the scored evidence for the named regional entities, but contributes no transferred control or operational points to the U.S. and global assessment because the required entity bridge is absent.
Evidence boundary: The credentials do not accredit IS EG Halal Certified, Inc., the Egyptian authorization, every office, every product category, or one undifferentiated global entity.
Sources: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
IS EG publicly responded to the verdict and disclosed a leadership transition
IS EG called the verdict baseless, announced appellate relief, identified Rena Zebi as CEO and Nicholas D’Alessio as vice president, and said Wael Hana would remain Chief Advisor.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #2, #3
Scoring treatment: Supports limited public and operational credit for named present leadership and a documented organizational response.
Evidence boundary: The statement does not establish ownership percentages, adviser authority, governing-body oversight, committee membership, or the result of the pending appeal.
Sources: [13] [15]

What needs caution

The 2019 exclusive market authority arose amid documented experience and process concerns
USDA reported that Egypt retained IS EG as the sole approved U.S. certifier while USDA was unaware of prior halal-certification experience, a relationship with U.S. Islamic organizations, the final Egyptian audit findings, or the criteria used to select and reject certifiers.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #12
Scoring treatment: Supports the existing limits on ownership, governance, competent-personnel, Islamic-authority, impartiality, and capacity factors; it creates no separate penalty.
Evidence boundary: The USDA report was a staff assessment, not a final Egyptian audit, judicial finding, or proof that current IS EG personnel and procedures are unchanged from 2019.
Sources: [16]
The adjudicated case is directly connected to historical control and the certification monopoly
A jury convicted Wael Hana, the court imposed a 97-month sentence, fine, and forfeiture, and DOJ reported trial evidence that IS EG funds were used in the scheme connected to protecting the monopoly. IS EG disputes the verdict, and the appeal remains pending in the reviewed record.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #2, #3, #7
Scoring treatment: Explains the existing ownership, governance, and impartiality limits. Metric 7 already receives zero operational evidence because no current committee or decision record was reviewed; no duplicate legal-case penalty is added.
Evidence boundary: The conviction and sentence do not establish appellate affirmance, invalidate every certificate, prove every worker or office participated, or establish misconduct in every current certification file.
Sources: [13] [14] [15] [19]
The complete current ownership and global control map remain unresolved
Authoritative records identify two New Jersey corporations, historical operating control, financial backing, current executive roles, and a continuing Chief Advisor role, but not exact current percentages, every shareholder, control rights, related parties, or the complete international entity map.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #2, #3
Scoring treatment: Limits control, operational, and public-evidence factors for legal structure, ownership, and accountable governance.
Evidence boundary: The finding does not prove that ownership records, bylaws, or intercompany agreements do not exist. It identifies what the reviewed public and authenticated record does not establish.
Sources: [13] [14] [18] [19] [20]
A reported owner statement makes the experience and Islamic-governance question concrete
NorthJersey.com quoted a 2020 court declaration in which Wael Hana reportedly self-identified as Christian and said he was not experienced in halal certification, while describing Egyptian-provided imams and trained veterinarians as assistance.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #3, #4, #5
Scoring treatment: Supports the existing limits on accountable leadership, competent-personnel attribution, and current Islamic decision authority; it creates no separate penalty beyond those already low factors.
Evidence boundary: The underlying declaration was not independently retrieved. The statement must remain attributed to the publication. Christianity itself is not a negative scoring factor; the relevant issues are admitted lack of experience at that time and whether qualified Islamic authority and competent personnel are currently identifiable and accountable.
Sources: [21] [22]
Recognized regional accreditation does not establish the U.S. or global organization’s responsible people
The official credentials name Uruguay, Brazil, and India entities, while the reviewed record does not establish the ownership, governance, shared personnel, shared decisions, activity share, or denominator required to transfer their implementation assurance.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10, #11, #12
Scoring treatment: Sets the global assessment’s accreditation scope and assurance factors to zero while preserving the verified regional context.
Evidence boundary: The finding does not dispute ENAS or NABCB authority and does not diminish the valid credentials inside their named entities and scopes.
Sources: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
Current qualified personnel and Islamic decision authority are hidden from public scrutiny
The procedures define technical and Islamic roles, but the assessed U.S. and global organization does not publicly identify the current auditors, experts, Islamic reviewers, qualifications, appointments, authorization scopes, monitored assignments, or signed final decision chain. The public can see role descriptions without being able to identify the people exercising those roles.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #3, #4, #5, #6
Scoring treatment: Limits responsible-person control, operational, and public-evidence factors, producing 25.75% for personnel competence and 18.75% for Islamic authority.
Evidence boundary: The finding does not infer anyone’s religion, declare that no qualified person exists, or call any unnamed person fictitious. It records that the responsible people and assignments are hidden from public scrutiny and were not substantiated for the assessed entity and scope.
Sources: [1] [2] [5] [7]
Certificate-level traceability and global capacity remain incomplete
The India register file contains headings without certificate entries, the global portal requires login, and worldwide client, tonnage, financial-volume, staffing, and workload claims lack an independently verifiable denominator.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #10, #12
Scoring treatment: Sets certificate-traceability operational evidence to zero and limits capacity control, operational, and public-evidence factors.
Evidence boundary: A non-public register or internal workload system may exist. The finding concerns what consumers and assessors could verify in the reviewed record.
Sources: [1] [4]

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. 4 checks were fully supported, and 4 checks had partial support.
72.00% 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.
3.6000 of 5 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
3.3750 of 4.5000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.2250 of 0.3000 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 3.7500 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 4 fulfilled, 4 partial.
Why this metric earned 72.00 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 3.3750 competence + 0.2250 public accountability = 3.6000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 1.C1 — fulfilled: The certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity.
  Evidence route: Public source. New Jersey’s official registry publicly identifies IS EG Halal Certified, Inc. and IS EG Halal Holdings Inc. as separate domestic profit corporations.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 1.C2 — fulfilled: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.
  Evidence route: Public source. USDA, Dutch government, Egyptian market records, current offices, and accreditor directories corroborate continuing operations.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
3. Requirement 1.C3 — partial: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.
  Evidence route: Public source. IS EG Halal Certified, Inc. and IS EG Halal Holdings Inc. are identified, but a complete standing and intercompany map remains unavailable.
  Public sources: Source 1
4. Requirement 1.C4 — partial: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.
  Evidence route: Public source. Records establish real entities, consequential historical relationships, and current named management roles, but do not disclose the complete legal relationship among the U.S., Uruguay, Brazil, India, Egypt, and other offices.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 1.O1 — partial: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.
  Evidence route: Public source. ENAS publishes active accreditation schedules for IS EG Halal Latin America entities in Montevideo and São Paulo, while NABCB lists IS EG Halal India Private Limited. However, official records do not name IS EG Halal Certified, Inc. in New Jersey as the accredited legal entity.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5
2. Requirement 1.O2 — fulfilled: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.
  Evidence route: Public source. New Jersey registry identifies the legal types, cities, and formation dates for the domestic profit corporations.
  Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 1.P1 — fulfilled: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.
  Evidence route: Public source. New Jersey’s official registry publicly identifies IS EG Halal Certified, Inc. and IS EG Halal Holdings 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: Public source. IS EG is a real operating network with multiple publicly identified entities, while the complete legal structure and intercompany relationships remain incomplete.
  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: Public source. No evidence provided.
2. Requirement 2.C2 — not verified: Ownership percentages or interests are established.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
3. Requirement 2.C3 — not verified: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
4. Requirement 2.C4 — not verified: Related entities that could affect control are identified.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
5. Requirement 2.C5 — not verified: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
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: Public source. No evidence provided.
2. Requirement 2.O2 — not verified: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
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: Public source. No evidence provided.
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: Public source. No 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.
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. 1 check was fully supported, 4 checks had partial support, and 5 checks remained unverified.
33.26% 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.
4.6571 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
4.4471 of 12.6000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.2100 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 4.7250 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 4 partial, 5 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 33.26 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 4.4471 competence + 0.2100 public accountability = 4.6571 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 3.C1 — fulfilled: Senior leadership is identified.
  Evidence route: Public source. IS EG identifies Rena Zebi as chief executive officer, Nicholas D’Alessio as vice president, and Wael Hana as Chief Advisor.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 3.C2 — partial: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.
  Evidence route: Public source. IS EG names executive roles and publishes procedures assigning responsibilities, but does not identify a complete governing body, certification committees, appointment authority, or global accountability structure.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
3. Requirement 3.C3 — partial: Certification decision authority is assigned.
  Evidence route: Public source. IS EG's public procedures describe certification review and decisions, but the current people responsible for final certification decisions are not attributable for the assessed U.S. and global organization.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
4. Requirement 3.C4 — not verified: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
5. Requirement 3.C5 — partial: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.
  Evidence route: Public source. Executive roles and formal procedures are documented, but worldwide accountability lines remain incomplete.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 3.O1 — not verified: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
2. Requirement 3.O2 — not verified: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
3. Requirement 3.O3 — not verified: Management review and internal oversight occur.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 3.P1 — partial: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.
  Evidence route: Public source. Leadership roles and procedures are public, but governing-body, committee membership, and the complete global organization chart are not.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
2. Requirement 3.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.
  Evidence route: Public source. No 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.
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. 2 checks were fully supported, 3 checks had partial support, and 9 checks remained unverified.
28.23% 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.
5.0808 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
4.9008 of 16.2000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.1800 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 5.0786 of 18 points. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 2 fulfilled, 3 partial, 9 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 28.23 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 4.9008 competence + 0.1800 public accountability = 5.0808 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 4.C1 — fulfilled: Competence criteria exist for technical auditors.
  Evidence route: Public source. The public procedure defines technical roles and sector competence.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
2. Requirement 4.C2 — fulfilled: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.
  Evidence route: Public source. The public procedure defines Islamic-affairs roles and competence.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
3. Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
4. Requirement 4.C4 — not verified: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
5. Requirement 4.C5 — partial: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.
  Evidence route: Public source. The public procedure defines sector competence, but does not identify the current people, qualifications, or appointments.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
6. Requirement 4.C6 — partial: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. The public procedure defines authorization and monitoring, but does not identify the current people or entity-level authority.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
7. Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 4.O1 — not verified: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
2. Requirement 4.O2 — not verified: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
3. Requirement 4.O3 — not verified: Assignments match sector and scope competence.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
4. Requirement 4.O4 — not verified: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 4.P1 — partial: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.
  Evidence route: Public source. Personnel roles are defined, but the current people and their assignments are not publicly identified.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
2. Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
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: Public source. No 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.
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. 4 checks had partial support, and 7 checks remained unverified.
21.18% 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.
3.8118 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
3.8118 of 16.2000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0000 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 3.6000 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 4 partial, 7 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 21.18 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 3.8118 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 3.8118 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 5.C1 — not verified: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
2. Requirement 5.C2 — partial: Muslim decision makers are used where required.
  Evidence route: Public source. IS EG's scheme requires Islamic-affairs expertise in audit and decision functions, and procedures describe technical and Islamic-affairs roles, but the specific current qualified people are not identified.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
3. Requirement 5.C3 — not verified: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
4. Requirement 5.C4 — partial: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.
  Evidence route: Public source. Public procedures describe nonconformities, corrective action, certification review and decisions, sanctions, complaints, and appeals, providing a controlled decision path design, though specific current authorities are not identified.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
5. Requirement 5.C5 — partial: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.
  Evidence route: Public source. Public procedures describe impartiality controls, but the current people responsible for technical audit, Islamic review, and decisions are not identified to confirm independence.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
6. Requirement 5.C6 — partial: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.
  Evidence route: Public source. Public procedures describe certification review and decisions, providing role requirements, but the file-level sign-off chain and responsible people are not public.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 5.O1 — not verified: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
2. Requirement 5.O2 — not verified: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
3. Requirement 5.O3 — not verified: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 5.P1 — not verified: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
2. Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.
  Evidence route: Public source. No 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. 10 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 4 checks remained unverified.
63.71% 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.
8.9188 of 14 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
8.0788 of 12.6000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.8400 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 9.7300 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 10 fulfilled, 1 partial, 4 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 63.71 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 8.0788 competence + 0.8400 public accountability = 8.9188 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 6.C1 — fulfilled: Application and application review are controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. The published procedure describes application review.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 6.C2 — not verified: The audit program and audit time are determined by scope, risk, complexity, sites, and prior results.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
3. Requirement 6.C3 — fulfilled: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.
  Evidence route: Public source. The published procedure describes two-stage audits.
  Public sources: Source 1
4. Requirement 6.C4 — fulfilled: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.
  Evidence route: Public source. The published procedure describes on-site work.
  Public sources: Source 1
5. Requirement 6.C5 — not verified: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
6. Requirement 6.C6 — fulfilled: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.
  Evidence route: Public source. The published procedure describes findings, corrective action, and reports.
  Public sources: Source 1
7. Requirement 6.C7 — fulfilled: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. The published procedure describes technical and Islamic roles, certification review and decisions.
  Public sources: Source 1
8. Requirement 6.C8 — fulfilled: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. The published procedure describes surveillance and recertification.
  Public sources: Source 1
9. Requirement 6.C9 — fulfilled: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. The architecture for registers, suspensions, withdrawals is published.
  Public sources: Source 1
10. Requirement 6.C10 — not verified: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 6.O1 — partial: The current certification system implements each applicable control.
  Evidence route: Public source. Government market records corroborate use of a certification system, but no redacted global audit file or person-linked assignment was reviewed.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 6.O2 — not verified: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
3. Requirement 6.O3 — fulfilled: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.
  Evidence route: Public source. No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.
  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. The scheme and certification procedure are unusually detailed and publicly accessible.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
2. Requirement 6.P2 — fulfilled: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.
  Evidence route: Public source. The scheme and certification procedure are unusually detailed and publicly accessible.
  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.
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. 6 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 4 checks remained unverified.
53.65% 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.
3.2188 of 6 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
2.8588 of 5.4000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.3600 of 0.3600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Impartiality, conflicts, and independence earns 3.6000 of 6 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 6 fulfilled, 1 partial, 4 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 53.65 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 2.8588 competence + 0.3600 public accountability = 3.2188 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 7.C1 — fulfilled: An impartiality policy and risk process exist.
  Evidence route: Public source. Published procedures require risk assessment and impartiality controls.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
2. Requirement 7.C2 — partial: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.
  Evidence route: Public source. Impartiality oversight rules exist, but the responsible committee members and operational mechanisms are not established for the assessed global organization.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 7.C3 — fulfilled: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. Published policies require consultancy separation and conflict controls.
  Public sources: Source 1
4. Requirement 7.C4 — fulfilled: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.
  Evidence route: Public source. Published policies require risk assessment and conflict declarations.
  Public sources: Source 1
5. Requirement 7.C5 — fulfilled: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.
  Evidence route: Public source. Published policies require independent certification review and decision controls.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
6. Requirement 7.C6 — not verified: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 7.O1 — not verified: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
2. Requirement 7.O2 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are documented.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
3. Requirement 7.O3 — not verified: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
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 and decision-separation rules, as well as complaint routes, are publicly accessible.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
2. Requirement 7.P2 — fulfilled: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.
  Evidence route: Public source. The impartiality and decision-separation rules are publicly accessible.
  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.
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. 3 checks were fully supported, 3 checks had partial support, and 4 checks remained unverified.
37.59% 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.
1.1276 of 3 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
0.9926 of 2.7000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.1350 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 1.2750 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 3 fulfilled, 3 partial, 4 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 37.59 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.9926 competence + 0.1350 public accountability = 1.1276 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. IS EG's published scheme identifies IS EG-P-21 Halal Scheme and GSO 2055-1/GSO 2055-2 standards, Revision 00, dated 01-11-2025, establishing controlled governing standard names and versions.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 8.C2 — partial: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.
  Evidence route: Public source. ENAS and NABCB publish active accreditation schedules for Uruguay, Brazil, and India with specific standards, dates, offices, activities, and product scopes. The global brand scope remains fragmented.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4
3. Requirement 8.C3 — not verified: Exclusions and limitations are defined.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
4. Requirement 8.C4 — fulfilled: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. The scheme works in conjunction with GSO 2055-1 and GSO 2055-2 standards, controlling supplementary destination-market schemes.
  Public sources: Source 1
5. Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
6. Requirement 8.C6 — not verified: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 8.O1 — partial: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.
  Evidence route: Public source. Regional accreditation records show specific standards, dates, and scopes are used for those entities, but it does not establish a single global accredited scope.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
2. Requirement 8.O2 — not verified: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
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. The standard (IS EG-P-21, GSO 2055-1/2055-2), version (Revision 00, dated 01-11-2025), and scope (food, animal slaughtering, cosmetic & personal care) are publicly identifiable.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 8.P2 — partial: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.
  Evidence route: Public source. The public can determine that the scheme works in conjunction with GSO 2055-1 and GSO 2055-2 standards, but a specific precedence rule resolving conflicts is not explicitly identified in the reviewed summary.
  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.
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. 16 checks were fully supported, and 4 checks remained unverified.
56.75% 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.
4.5398 of 8 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
4.0941 of 7.2000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.4457 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 4.9810 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 16 fulfilled, 4 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 56.75 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 4.0941 competence + 0.4457 public accountability = 4.5398 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: Public source. Public disclosure is versioned and dated (Revision 00, dated 01-11-2025).
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 9.C2 — fulfilled: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.
  Evidence route: Public source. Bases certification on Shariah without specifying a single madhab.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 9.O1 — fulfilled: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.
  Evidence route: Public source. Certifies against IS EG-P-21 Halal Scheme and GSO 2055-1/GSO 2055-2 standards.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
3. Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 9.P1 — fulfilled: Religious or jurisprudential basis.
  Evidence route: Public source. Bases certification on Shariah (Islamic jurisprudence or laws) without specifying a single madhab.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 9.P2 — fulfilled: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.
  Evidence route: Public source. The scheme works in conjunction with GSO 2055-1 and GSO 2055-2 standards.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 9.P3 — fulfilled: Mechanical poultry slaughter.
  Evidence route: Public source. Mechanical slaughtering is permitted under specific conditions including continuous tasmiyyah and blade requirements.
  Public sources: Source 1
4. Requirement 9.P4 — fulfilled: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.
  Evidence route: Public source. Requires the slaughterer to mention the name of Allah before operating the mechanical knife; recorders are prohibited.
  Public sources: Source 1
5. Requirement 9.P5 — fulfilled: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.
  Evidence route: Public source. Slaughter must be done by a sane Muslim with a competency certificate, under direct IS EG Halal supervision.
  Public sources: Source 1
6. Requirement 9.P6 — fulfilled: Stunning and reversibility.
  Evidence route: Public source. Stunning is generally disliked but low-voltage, non-penetrating head shock is permitted for large animals if they remain alive; electric shock is prohibited for birds.
  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 cutting the pharynx, esophagus, and jugular veins.
  Public sources: Source 1
9. Requirement 9.P9 — fulfilled: Pork and animal derivatives.
  Evidence route: Public source. Strictly prohibits pork and requires all animal derivatives to be from Halal slaughtered animals.
  Public sources: Source 1
10. Requirement 9.P10 — fulfilled: Alcohol and ethanol.
  Evidence route: Public source. Allows ethanol as a processing aid up to 1% (0.2% for Gulf), provided it is not sourced from alcoholic beverages.
  Public sources: Source 1
11. Requirement 9.P11 — fulfilled: Processing aids and ingredient sources.
  Evidence route: Public source. All ingredients, including gelatin and rennet, must declare their sources and be free from non-halal elements.
  Public sources: Source 1
12. Requirement 9.P12 — fulfilled: Shared lines and cross-contact.
  Evidence route: Public source. Shared lines are permitted if strictly separated and cleansed, but continuous conversion between Halal and swine lines is prohibited.
  Public sources: Source 1
13. Requirement 9.P13 — fulfilled: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.
  Evidence route: Public source. Requires specific washing protocols for equipment previously used for pork, including water and cleaning agents.
  Public sources: Source 1
14. Requirement 9.P14 — not verified: Certificate-level position communication.
  Evidence route: Public source. No 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.
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. 3 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 6 checks remained unverified.
39.62% 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.
1.1885 of 3 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
1.1435 of 2.7000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0450 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 1.1925 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 3 fulfilled, 1 partial, 6 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 39.62 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 1.1435 competence + 0.0450 public accountability = 1.1885 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 10.C1 — not verified: Certificate templates contain required issuer, holder, site, product or activity scope, identifier, issue date, expiry date, and authorization.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
2. Requirement 10.C2 — fulfilled: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. IS EG's published procedures require certificate registers.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 10.C3 — fulfilled: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. IS EG's published procedures require certificate registers, status changes, suspension, withdrawal, scope control.
  Public sources: Source 1
4. Requirement 10.C4 — fulfilled: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. IS EG's published procedures require action against mark misuse.
  Public sources: Source 1
5. Requirement 10.C5 — not verified: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 10.O1 — not verified: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
2. Requirement 10.O2 — not verified: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
3. Requirement 10.O3 — not verified: Directory and status records are maintained.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 10.P1 — partial: Consumers can verify current certificate status through a working HTTPS route, searchable directory, QR destination, or equivalent accessible mechanism.
  Evidence route: Public source. The India public register file contains field headings but no certificate entries, while the global portal requires login; no populated global register was reviewed.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 10.P2 — not verified: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.
  Evidence route: Public source. No 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.
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. 6 checks were fully supported, and 4 checks remained unverified.
56.82% 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.
0.5682 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
0.5082 of 0.9000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0600 of 0.0600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.6300 of 1 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 6 fulfilled, 4 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 56.82 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.5082 competence + 0.0600 public accountability = 0.5682 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 11.C1 — fulfilled: Complaints and appeals have documented procedures.
  Evidence route: Public source. The public procedure specifies receipt, validation, independent committee review, conflict separation, deadlines, records, remedies, and escalation.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 11.C2 — fulfilled: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.
  Evidence route: Public source. The public procedure specifies independent committee review.
  Public sources: Source 1
3. Requirement 11.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
4. Requirement 11.C4 — fulfilled: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. The public procedure specifies receipt, validation, independent committee review, conflict separation, deadlines, records, remedies, and escalation.
  Public sources: Source 1
5. Requirement 11.C5 — fulfilled: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. The public procedure specifies conflict separation.
  Public sources: Source 1
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 11.O1 — not verified: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
2. Requirement 11.O2 — not verified: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
3. Requirement 11.O3 — not verified: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
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 complete procedure and route are public, including a ten-working-day acknowledgement and one-month final-response target.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 11.P2 — fulfilled: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.
  Evidence route: Public source. The complete procedure and route are public.
  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. 3 checks had partial support, and 6 checks remained unverified.
13.85% 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.
0.2771 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
0.2471 of 1.8000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0300 of 0.1200 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 0.3083 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 3 partial, 6 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 13.85 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.2471 competence + 0.0300 public accountability = 0.2771 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: Public source. Published resource controls support some capacity, but global personnel and workload controls are not established.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
2. Requirement 12.C2 — not verified: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
3. Requirement 12.C3 — not verified: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
4. Requirement 12.C4 — not verified: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 12.O1 — partial: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.
  Evidence route: Public source. Government records and regional accreditations corroborate activity since 2017, Egyptian market authority, and current accredited offices, but worldwide qualified capacity for the claimed scale remains insufficiently substantiated.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
2. Requirement 12.O2 — not verified: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
3. Requirement 12.O3 — not verified: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.
  Evidence route: Public source. No evidence provided.
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. IS EG publishes office locations, executive roles, and major volume claims, but not the client list, workload records, staffing, or evidence supporting those totals.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
2. Requirement 12.P2 — not verified: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.
  Evidence route: Public source. No 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.

Bottom line

What you should know

What the evidence supports

The record provides substantial support for IS EG’s legal identity and standing.
Public procedures provide substantial evidence of halal-specific audit and certification controls.
The record provides partial support for complaints, appeals, and correction arrangements.

What should make you cautious

The record does not sufficiently establish who holds Islamic authority or makes halal decisions.
The record does not sufficiently establish the qualifications, authorization, and current work of personnel.
The record does not sufficiently establish complete accountable leadership and governance.

What evidence could change this view

What current, verifiable records would clarify ownership and control?
What current, verifiable records would clarify operating history and demonstrated capacity?
What current, verifiable records would clarify islamic authority and halal decision rights?

View the original requirement-level questions

What independently verifiable evidence, if any, would change the finding for requirement 1.C3?
What independently verifiable evidence, if any, would change the finding for requirement 1.C4?
What independently verifiable evidence, if any, would change the finding for requirement 1.O1?
What independently verifiable evidence, if any, would change the finding for requirement 1.P2?
What independently verifiable evidence, if any, would change the finding for requirement 2.C1?
What independently verifiable evidence, if any, would change the finding for requirement 2.C2?

Credibility Score interpretation

Model B assigns 34.4579 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.0000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 2.5307 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. It does not treat a district-court judgment as an appellate affirmance, does not invalidate every IS EG certificate, and does not infer anyone’s religion. An undisclosed item is not treated as proof that no internal control exists.

The 2019 Egypt decision and the experience question

A May 2019 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service report identified IS EG Halal Certified as a private Fort Lee company incorporated in November 2017 by Wael Hana and Antranig Aslanian Jr. USDA reported that Egypt removed seven of the eight U.S. certifiers it reviewed and retained IS EG as the sole approved certifier. It also said that FAS Cairo was not aware that IS EG had prior halal-certification experience, a preexisting relationship with the U.S. beef industry, or relationships with Islamic organizations in the United States. [16]

USDA reported that fees were expected to rise from $10 to $20 per metric ton to about $220 per metric ton, and warned that the decision could disrupt markets and increase consumer prices. The report also said that USDA had not received the final Egyptian audit findings and did not know the criteria used to approve or reject the certifiers. Those limits matter: the report is a government staff assessment of a market change, not a final Egyptian accreditation decision or a judicial judgment. [16]

NorthJersey.com later quoted a 2020 court declaration in which Hana reportedly said: “As I am a Christian, I am not experienced in halal certification, so the Egyptian government has provided imams and trained veterinarians to assist me.” Middle East Monitor, republishing Anadolu Agency reporting, also described the statement. The underlying declaration was not independently retrieved, so this statement remains attributed to the reporting. The rating issue is not Christianity; it is the reported lack of halal-certification experience at that time and whether qualified Islamic authority, competent personnel, appointments, and accountable decisions can now be identified. [21] [22]

From allegations to conviction, sentence, response, and appeal

The September 2023 U.S. Attorney release concerned an indictment and must be described as allegations at that stage. It alleged that Hana used IS EG revenue in a bribery scheme and that Senator Robert Menendez pressured a USDA official to stop opposing the company’s monopoly. [19]

The case later reached adjudication. The January 2025 U.S. Attorney sentencing release says that a jury convicted Hana in July 2024 of conspiracy to commit bribery, conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud, bribery, two counts of honest-services wire fraud, and conspiracy for a public official to act as a foreign agent. The court sentenced him to 97 months in prison, imposed a $1.25 million fine, and ordered $125,000 in forfeiture. DOJ reported that trial evidence established that IS EG gained the monopoly despite Hana and the company having no prior halal-certification experience, and that IS EG funds were used in the bribery scheme. [14]

IS EG called the verdict entirely baseless, said Hana would pursue post-trial and appellate relief, announced that he had stepped down as CEO, and identified new leadership while retaining him as Chief Advisor. The public Second Circuit docket records a pending appeal and does not report a reversal in the record reviewed through the source cutoff. The article therefore presents the conviction and sentence, the company’s response, the continuing adviser role, and the pending appeal together. [13] [15]

These adjudicated facts are a material flag about governance and reliance, but they do not invalidate every certificate or establish wrongdoing by every employee, contractor, office, or current decision-maker. The rating already limits ownership and governance credit and gives no operational impartiality evidence because no current committee or sampled decision record was reviewed. Applying a separate legal-case penalty would count the same evidence twice.

Regional accreditation is real, but it does not cover the whole network

ENAS publishes active accreditation schedules for IS EG Halal Latin America entities in Montevideo and São Paulo. NABCB lists IS EG Halal India Private Limited in New Delhi and records an interruption in 2026. These are recognized qualifying current credentials with specified standards, dates, offices, activities, and product scopes. Independent accreditors have vetted those regional organizations within those defined scopes. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

The official records do not name IS EG Halal Certified, Inc. in New Jersey as the accredited legal entity. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for the assessed U.S. and global organization. The records also do not establish the ownership relationship, governance authority, shared personnel, shared certification decisions, proportion of global work, or the activity denominator needed to carry assurance from the regional credentials to that organization. The assessment therefore treats the regional credentials as verified strengths but does not transfer their accreditation scope or assurance to the U.S. and global rating.

Egyptian market authorization is also real, but it is different from accreditation. Approval to certify products entering a market is not the same as independent accreditation of the U.S. organization against a conformity-assessment standard. [16] [17]

What the procedures show—and the people they do not identify

IS EG’s public procedures describe application review, staged audits, on-site verification, technical and Islamic-affairs roles, nonconformities, corrective action, certification review and decisions, surveillance, recertification, special audits, impartiality, sanctions, complaints, and appeals. This is meaningful evidence of how the system is designed and receives substantial credit. [2] [3] [5] [6] [7]

Written procedures cannot replace evidence about the current people whose work matters. The reviewed record for the assessed U.S. and global organization did not identify the current halal auditors, technical experts, Islamic reviewers, technical reviewers, or final decision-makers, or their qualifications, appointments, authorization scopes, monitored performance, file assignments, and signed decisions. IS EG is not an anonymous corporation—several executives are publicly named—but the people exercising its operative religious and certification authority are not publicly identifiable.

Allah says, “وَلَا تَقۡفُ مَا لَيۡسَ لَكَ بِهِۦ عِلۡمٌۚ إِنَّ ٱلسَّمۡعَ وَٱلۡبَصَرَ وَٱلۡفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُوْلَٰٓئِكَ كَانَ عَنۡهُ مَسۡـُٔولٗا”—“Do not follow what you have no sure knowledge of” [23]. There is a limited analogy in the hadith sciences: Ibn Hajar wrote that an unnamed narrator’s report is not accepted until the narrator is named, because identity must be known before reliability can be assessed [24]. He treated unknown status as a reason to suspend judgment until the person’s condition became clear [25]. A halal certificate is not a hadith, but both involve consequential reliance. A procedure that names roles without naming the people responsible does not allow the Muslim community to assess who is being permitted to exercise religious authority.

The same distinction affects certificate traceability and capacity. IS EG publishes a framework for registers, suspensions, withdrawals, and mark control, but the India public register has headings without certificate entries and the global portal requires login. Claims about worldwide clients, tonnage, financial volume, staffing, and workload were not independently substantiated with an activity denominator. [1] [4] [5]

What evidence could change the result

IS EG could materially change the result by providing current ownership and voting records for each legal entity; intercompany agreements that show governance and certification authority; the percentage and volume of work performed by each accredited office; named current auditors, technical experts, Islamic reviewers, and decision-makers with their qualifications and appointments; representative redacted audit, review, and decision files; a populated public certificate register; current impartiality-committee and conflict records; complaint outcomes; and substantiated workload and staffing data.

Evidence could raise or lower the rating. Any response should identify the legal entity, office, scope, date, responsible person, and decision authority. Sensitive personal information may be redacted if what remains can still be authenticated. Material corrections will be dated and explained.

Conclusion: documented systems, but accountable people remain unclear

IS EG is not an unknown or inactive organization. Government records, current offices, procedures, Egyptian authorization, and real regional accreditation show meaningful operation and documented system design. The rating reflects these strengths.

The central accountability issue is that the assessed U.S. and global organization does not connect those systems to a complete legal-control map or to identifiable qualified people who carry out Islamic review and make final halal decisions. Those working authorities are not publicly identifiable. The historical monopoly and adjudicated case make those missing lines of accountability especially important, while the pending appeal and the organization’s response must remain part of the record.

The source assessment describes a result of 36.9886 raw points, ordinarily rounded to a 39% Credibility Score, Grade F. The legal history is not an extra penalty, and the regional accreditations are not disregarded. Each is considered only for the measure, organization, evidence layer, date, and scope it supports.

This public accountability assessment is evidence-bounded educational analysis. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard, an accreditation or certification decision, a religious ruling, or legal advice.

How clearly IS EG publishes its certification rules and positions

This disclosure review asks a different question from accreditation: can an ordinary consumer identify the standard or scheme, its current version, the approving authority, and the material halal positions that guide this body’s certifications? The reviewed material substantially discloses the major positions in a way readers can understand, though some gaps remain.

On governing documents, scope, and certificate communication, the reviewed sources establish that IS EG certifies against the IS EG-P-21 Halal Scheme and GSO 2055-1/GSO 2055-2 standards; that the scheme is Revision 00, dated 01-11-2025; that certification is based on Shariah, meaning Islamic jurisprudence or laws, without naming a single madhab, or school of Islamic legal thought; that its scope covers food, animal slaughtering, and cosmetic & personal care products; and that the scheme works alongside GSO 2055-1 and GSO 2055-2 standards. [7]

The remaining reviewed questions were not disclosed clearly enough to classify with confidence. The scheme does not state whether specific religious positions, such as stunning or mechanical slaughter, are printed on the certificate. The website provides no public register of certified clients or certificate-verification tool. This is a limit of the public record; it does not prove that the body has no internal rule.

On slaughter and poultry controls, the reviewed sources establish that mechanical slaughter is permitted under specified conditions, including continuous tasmiyyah and blade requirements; that the slaughterer must mention the name of Allah before operating the mechanical knife; that recorders are prohibited; that stunning is generally disliked but a low-voltage, non-penetrating head shock is allowed for large animals if they remain alive; that electric shock is prohibited for birds; that the animal must be alive at slaughter; that the pharynx, esophagus, and jugular veins must be cut; and that slaughter must be done by a sane Muslim with a competency certificate under direct IS EG Halal supervision. [7]

On ingredients and the production environment, the reviewed sources establish that pork is strictly prohibited and all animal derivatives must come from Halal-slaughtered animals; that ethanol may be used as a processing aid up to 1% (0.2% for Gulf), provided it is not sourced from alcoholic beverages; that all ingredients, including gelatin and rennet, must declare their sources and be free from non-halal elements; that shared lines are allowed if they are strictly separated and cleansed, but continuous conversion between Halal and swine lines is prohibited; and that specific washing protocols are required for equipment previously used for pork, including water and cleaning agents. [7]

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

What evidence could address the remaining gaps

This section explains what evidence could support a higher rating for IS EG Halal. It does not mean that a control is absent simply because the reviewed public record did not establish it. A submission must match the assessed organization, state its dates and scope, and show who was responsible for implementation and decision-making.

Qualifying records may be public or submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Private records may support evidence about controls or operations when they can be authenticated, but they do not create public-disclosure credit unless the organization makes the material information public.

Metric 1 — Legal identity and operating status: A current authoritative registry or regulator record for IS EG Halal could show the legal name, entity number, jurisdiction, formation date, active status, operating name, and any required certification-business registration that has not already been established.
Metric 2 — Ownership and control: A current authoritative ownership filing or authenticated controlled record for IS EG Halal could identify beneficial owners, ownership percentages, voting or governance rights, controlling persons, related entities, and conflict controls for the assessed organization.
Metric 3 — Governance and accountable leadership: A current IS EG Halal governing-body roster and organizational chart could identify accountable leaders, their roles, appointment or authority basis, management responsibilities, and organization-level accountability for certification decisions.
Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: A current IS EG Halal personnel roster or independently assessed controlled record could identify 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 IS EG Halal records could identify the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, their qualifications and appointments, the jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, organization-level authority, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
Metric 6 — Halal audit method and facility verification: A current controlled IS EG Halal audit procedure and corroborating recent files could show application and scope review, ingredients and process evaluation, on-site work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
Metric 7 — Impartiality and decision separation: A current IS EG Halal impartiality and decision-separation policy, with implementation records, could identify conflict review, separation from consultancy, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and certification decision.
Metric 8 — Standards, scheme, and certification scope: A current IS EG Halal standard or scheme record could identify the version, effective date, covered sectors and locations, exclusions, supplementary schemes, precedence rules, certificate scope, and responsible issuing organization.
Metric 9 — Public certification criteria and position disclosure: A current public IS EG Halal declaration or equivalent methodology could cover the governing standard and version, religious basis, scope and exclusions, practical halal positions, supplementary-scheme precedence, certificate communication, and a public verification route.
Metric 10 — Certificate traceability and mark control: A current public IS EG Halal certificate directory or verification method could show the certificate identifier, holder, site, products or scope, effective and expiry dates, live status, suspension or withdrawal, and enforceable controls over mark use and misuse.
Metric 11 — Complaints, appeals, and corrections: A current public IS EG Halal complaints, appeals, and corrections procedure could identify submission routes, 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 IS EG Halal operating records could show the timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and the capacity of competent personnel matched to that workload.

Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body

IS EG Halal or another affected party may submit responsive records through the secure documentary-evidence form. Material evidence is assessed under the same methodology whether it raises or lowers the Credibility Score.

An authorized representative may also use Claim this certification body. The claimant must document identity, role, and authority to act for the assessed organization. That authority must be verified through qualifying documentation and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim remains private and pending until review; 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 organization, statement, measure, 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 does IS EG receive a 39% Credibility Score, Grade F?

IS EG receives credit for identifiable entities, named executives, detailed procedures, market authorization, operating history, and recognized regional accreditation. However, the full global control map, current qualified personnel, Islamic decision authority, evidence that impartiality operates in practice, public certificate traceability, and worldwide capacity remain insufficiently established. The legal history creates no separate penalty, and no floor or cap was applied.

Does Wael Hana’s conviction invalidate every IS EG certificate?

No. The conviction, sentence, DOJ’s description of IS EG funds being used, the continuing Chief Advisor role, the company response, and the pending appeal are material governance context. They do not prove that every audit, worker, office, or certificate was improper. The measurable deductions concern controls, accountability, and operating evidence.

Does IS EG have accreditation?

Specified Uruguay, Brazil, and India entities hold recognized qualifying current comprehensive accreditation within their listed scopes. Independent accreditors have vetted those organizations within those defined scopes. Those credentials do not accredit the New Jersey corporation or an undifferentiated global network, and they cannot be transferred without a verified legal relationship, shared controls, dates, scope, and an activity denominator.

Why does the article mention the reported Christian self-identification?

The article attributes a publication’s quotation of a 2020 court declaration and does not infer religion. Christianity is not a negative rating factor. The relevant accountability question is the reported admission of no halal-certification experience at that time and whether the organization now identifies qualified Islamic authority, competent personnel, appointments, and accountable decisions.

Can IS EG’s rating or flags change?

Yes. USDHS will rescore material authoritative evidence using the same control, operational, and public-evidence layers. Ownership records, connections among entities, activity denominators, current personnel and appointments, Islamic decision records, audit files, certificate data, complaint outcomes, and capacity records may raise or lower the Credibility Score.

References

View the controlling HIPS publication

Related audit-readiness guidance

Browse all USDHS Insights

IS EG Halal Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 37% Credibility Score, Grade F

Why certification bodies need clear accountability

IS EG’s organization and why its structure matters

IS EG Halal Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 37% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated

Where this score came from

What helps—and what gives us pause

What supports confidence

U.S. legal entities, leadership roles, and operating history are publicly identifiable

The public certification and accountability procedures are unusually detailed

Regional accreditation is real, current, and independently verifiable within exact scopes

IS EG publicly responded to the verdict and disclosed a leadership transition

What needs caution

The 2019 exclusive market authority arose amid documented experience and process concerns

The adjudicated case is directly connected to historical control and the certification monopoly

The complete current ownership and global control map remain unresolved

A reported owner statement makes the experience and Islamic-governance question concrete

Recognized regional accreditation does not establish the U.S. or global organization’s responsible people

Current qualified personnel and Islamic decision authority are hidden from public scrutiny

Certificate-level traceability and global capacity remain incomplete

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

The 2019 Egypt decision and the experience question

From allegations to conviction, sentence, response, and appeal

Regional accreditation is real, but it does not cover the whole network

What the procedures show—and the people they do not identify

What evidence could change the result

Conclusion: documented systems, but accountable people remain unclear

How clearly IS EG publishes its certification rules and positions