ISWA Halal Certification Department Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 94% Credibility Score, Grade A

Practical context for consumers

Consumers often see the ISWA Halal Certification mark on many food products, including meat and processed ingredients [1]. When that mark appears on a product, the practical question is whether a competent organization independently checked that the product meets halal requirements.

This review examines the organizational accountability of the ISWA Halal Certification Department [1]. It asks whether the certifier’s identity, leadership, qualified personnel, Islamic authority, audit methods, and accreditation can be publicly verified. It does not rule on whether individual certificates are valid. Instead, it assesses the organization’s transparency and the controls it has demonstrated.

Which organization is assessed and what accreditation covers

The organization assessed is the ISWA Halal Certification Department, in Silver Spring, Maryland. It is presented as a business operation managed by USA Halal Chamber of Commerce, Inc [1] [6]. ISWA’s current official notice says that the certification department and the Islamic Society of the Washington Area are completely separate organizations [2]. USA Halal Chamber of Commerce, Inc. was formed in 1997, and the ISWA operating name began in 2005 [6].

ISWA has two independently supported accreditation relationships [3] [5]. GAC, an independent accreditor, has vetted ISWA Halal Certification Department within the defined scope on its current certificate: accreditation HPC 0035 under GSO 2055-2:2021, covering categories CI through CV, GI, GII, and K [3] [4]. A 2025 USDA report also lists ISWA among the U.S. bodies accredited by Indonesia’s BPJPH for food, beverages, and slaughtering services [5].

An earlier review reported EIAC accreditation HBN-CB-045 [2]. However, EIAC’s current directory assigns HBN-CB-045 to an Australian body, and the reviewed record did not locate a current matching ISWA EIAC record [12]. This is an unresolved discrepancy about credential status, not an allegation of misconduct. The score relies only on the verified GAC and BPJPH credentials [3] [5].

Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment

ISWA Halal Certification Department Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 94% Credibility Score · Grade A · Strongly substantiated

Moderate confidence. ISWA Halal Certification Department receives a 94% Credibility Score, Grade A. The review found current independent accreditation that has vetted the organization within a defined scope, and a 2025 USDA report lists ISWA among U.S. bodies accredited by Indonesia’s BPJPH. These records strongly support the organization’s documented legal identity, leadership structure, qualified personnel, Islamic authority, and halal-specific audit controls. The result is not perfect because the independent-accreditation coverage is limited to the reviewed scope and some public information remains unavailable. The gaps concern ownership and control details, public explanations of certification criteria and halal positions, and information about Islamic authority and final decision rights.

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 94.1179 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 94%.

Detailed evidence

Why each category received its result

1. 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. All 8 checks were supported by the reviewed evidence.

   96.00% 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.

   4.8000 of 5 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 3 subrequirements: 1.C1, 1.O1, 1.O2.

   Competence contribution

   4.5000 of 4.5000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.3000 of 0.3000 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 5.0000 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 8 fulfilled.

   Why this metric earned 96.00 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 4.5000 competence + 0.3000 public accountability = 4.8000 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: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 1.C2 — fulfilled: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.

      Evidence route: Authoritative source. The USA Halal Chamber of Commerce, Inc. was formed in 1997, and the ISWA operating name began in 2005. The operating identity and location are publicly verified.

      Public sources: Source 1

   3. Requirement 1.C3 — fulfilled: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.

      Evidence route: Public source. ISWA's current official notice states that the certification department and the Islamic Society of the Washington Area are completely separate organizations. It is managed by USA Halal Chamber of Commerce, Inc.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   4. Requirement 1.C4 — fulfilled: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.

      Evidence route: Public source. ISWA is presented as a business operation managed by USA Halal Chamber of Commerce, Inc. The certification department and the Islamic Society of the Washington Area are completely separate organizations.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 1.O1 — fulfilled: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 1.O2 — fulfilled: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 1.P1 — fulfilled: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.

      Evidence route: Public source. The operating identity and location are publicly verified. Consumers often encounter the ISWA Halal Certification mark.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 1.P2 — fulfilled: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.

      Evidence route: Public source. The operating name, Silver Spring address, and managing corporate name are consistently presented and corroborated by GAC, BPJPH/USDA, and current certificates.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.

2. 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.

   90.00% 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.

   7.2000 of 8 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.

   Competence contribution

   7.2000 of 7.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 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 90.00 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 7.2000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 7.2000 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: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   2. Requirement 2.C2 — not verified: Ownership percentages or interests are established.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   3. Requirement 2.C3 — not verified: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   4. Requirement 2.C4 — not verified: Related entities that could affect control are identified.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   5. Requirement 2.C5 — not verified: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   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: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   2. Requirement 2.O2 — not verified: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   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: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   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: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   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. 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. 8 checks were fully supported, and 2 checks had partial support.

   93.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

   View the detailed evidence and calculation

   10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

   13.0200 of 14 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 8 subrequirements: 3.C1, 3.C2, 3.C3, 3.C4, 3.C5, 3.O1, 3.O2, 3.O3.

   Competence contribution

   12.6000 of 12.6000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.4200 of 0.8400 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 12.9500 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 8 fulfilled, 2 partial.

   Why this metric earned 93.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 12.6000 competence + 0.4200 public accountability = 13.0200 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: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 3.C2 — fulfilled: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   3. Requirement 3.C3 — fulfilled: Certification decision authority is assigned.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   4. Requirement 3.C4 — fulfilled: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   5. Requirement 3.C5 — fulfilled: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 3.O1 — fulfilled: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 3.O2 — fulfilled: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   3. Requirement 3.O3 — fulfilled: Management review and internal oversight occur.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 3.P1 — partial: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Public source. ISWA publicly identifies Habib D. Ghanim, Sr. as president and CEO, but broader governance details and committee membership remain undisclosed.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 3.P2 — partial: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.

      Evidence route: Public source. Leadership names are public, and certification decisions are reserved for ISWA's decision committee, but detailed delegated authorities and committee membership are not fully disclosed.

      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.

4. 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. 11 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 1 check remained unverified. 1 check did not apply.

   91.50% 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.

   16.4700 of 18 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 11 subrequirements: 4.C1, 4.C2, 4.C3, 4.C4, 4.C5, 4.C6, 4.C7, 4.O1, 4.O2, 4.O3, 4.O4.

   Competence contribution

   16.2000 of 16.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.2700 of 1.0800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 15.9750 of 18 points. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 11 fulfilled, 1 partial, 1 not independently verified, 1 not applicable.

   Why this metric earned 91.50 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 16.2000 competence + 0.2700 public accountability = 16.4700 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: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 4.C2 — fulfilled: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   3. Requirement 4.C3 — fulfilled: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   4. Requirement 4.C4 — fulfilled: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   5. Requirement 4.C5 — fulfilled: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   6. Requirement 4.C6 — fulfilled: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   7. Requirement 4.C7 — fulfilled: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 4.O1 — fulfilled: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 4.O2 — fulfilled: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   3. Requirement 4.O3 — fulfilled: Assignments match sector and scope competence.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   4. Requirement 4.O4 — fulfilled: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 4.P1 — partial: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Public source. ISWA publicly names its president and quality manager, though it does not publish the complete auditor roster.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   3. Requirement 4.P3 — not applicable: Private personnel files, degree numbers, and every assignment record need not be published when accreditation verifies competence.

      Evidence route: Not applicable. This is a confidentiality boundary rather than a demand to publish private personnel files, degree numbers, or every assignment record; current exact-entity accreditation verifies the applicable competence controls.

   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. 5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights

   What this means in plain English: This category asks who provides the Islamic review, what authority that person or body has, and who makes the final halal decision. 9 checks were fully supported, and 2 checks remained unverified.

   90.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

   View the detailed evidence and calculation

   11 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

   16.2000 of 18 weighted points. partially verified.

   Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 9 subrequirements: 5.C1, 5.C2, 5.C3, 5.C4, 5.C5, 5.C6, 5.O1, 5.O2, 5.O3.

   Competence contribution

   16.2000 of 16.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 1.0800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 15.3000 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 9 fulfilled, 2 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 90.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 16.2000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 16.2000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 5.C1 — fulfilled: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 5.C2 — fulfilled: Muslim decision makers are used where required.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   3. Requirement 5.C3 — fulfilled: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   4. Requirement 5.C4 — fulfilled: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   5. Requirement 5.C5 — fulfilled: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   6. Requirement 5.C6 — fulfilled: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 5.O1 — fulfilled: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 5.O2 — fulfilled: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   3. Requirement 5.O3 — fulfilled: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 5.P1 — not verified: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   2. Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   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. 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. All 15 checks were supported by the reviewed evidence.

   96.00% 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.

   13.4400 of 14 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 13 subrequirements: 6.C1, 6.C2, 6.C3, 6.C4, 6.C5, 6.C6, 6.C7, 6.C8, 6.C9, 6.C10, 6.O1, 6.O2, 6.O3.

   Competence contribution

   12.6000 of 12.6000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.8400 of 0.8400 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 14.0000 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 15 fulfilled.

   Why this metric earned 96.00 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 12.6000 competence + 0.8400 public accountability = 13.4400 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: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 6.C2 — fulfilled: The audit program and audit time are determined by scope, risk, complexity, sites, and prior results.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   3. Requirement 6.C3 — fulfilled: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   4. Requirement 6.C4 — fulfilled: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   5. Requirement 6.C5 — fulfilled: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   6. Requirement 6.C6 — fulfilled: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   7. Requirement 6.C7 — fulfilled: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   8. Requirement 6.C8 — fulfilled: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   9. Requirement 6.C9 — fulfilled: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   10. Requirement 6.C10 — fulfilled: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 6.O1 — fulfilled: The current certification system implements each applicable control.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 6.O2 — fulfilled: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   3. Requirement 6.O3 — fulfilled: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 6.P1 — fulfilled: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.

      Evidence route: Public source. The accepted article states the audit method is publicly detailed, requiring document review, onsite audit, audit reports, nonconformity clearance, and a decision committee.

      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 accepted article establishes that the body adheres to multiple international standards (GSO, OIC/SMIIC, etc.) and allows public verification of certification.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.

7. 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. 9 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 1 check remained unverified.

   91.50% 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.

   5.4900 of 6 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 9 subrequirements: 7.C1, 7.C2, 7.C3, 7.C4, 7.C5, 7.C6, 7.O1, 7.O2, 7.O3.

   Competence contribution

   5.4000 of 5.4000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0900 of 0.3600 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Impartiality, conflicts, and independence earns 5.3250 of 6 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 9 fulfilled, 1 partial, 1 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 91.50 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 5.4000 competence + 0.0900 public accountability = 5.4900 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: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 7.C2 — fulfilled: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   3. Requirement 7.C3 — fulfilled: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   4. Requirement 7.C4 — fulfilled: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   5. Requirement 7.C5 — fulfilled: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   6. Requirement 7.C6 — fulfilled: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 7.O1 — fulfilled: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 7.O2 — fulfilled: Conflicts and recusals are documented.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   3. Requirement 7.O3 — fulfilled: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 7.P1 — partial: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.

      Evidence route: Public source. The complaint route is publicly accessible, but the impartiality commitment is not clearly separated.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   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. 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. 7 checks were fully supported, 2 checks had partial support, and 1 check remained unverified.

   93.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

   View the detailed evidence and calculation

   10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

   2.7900 of 3 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 6 subrequirements: 8.C1, 8.C2, 8.C3, 8.C6, 8.O1, 8.O2.

   Competence contribution

   2.7000 of 2.7000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0900 of 0.1800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 2.4750 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 7 fulfilled, 2 partial, 1 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 93.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 2.7000 competence + 0.0900 public accountability = 2.7900 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: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 8.C2 — fulfilled: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   3. Requirement 8.C3 — fulfilled: Exclusions and limitations are defined.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   4. Requirement 8.C4 — fulfilled: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. The accepted article establishes that ISWA adheres to multiple international schemes and standards depending on the target market, indicating supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   5. Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   6. Requirement 8.C6 — fulfilled: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 8.O1 — fulfilled: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 8.O2 — fulfilled: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.

      Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 8.P1 — partial: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Public source. The accepted article notes that standards and certification scopes are fully public through accreditor directories and ISWA's site, but major criteria or version controls remain unavailable.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 8.P2 — partial: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.

      Evidence route: Public source. The accepted article states that ISWA adheres to multiple international schemes and standards depending on the target market, making supplementary schemes publicly identifiable, though conflict resolution rules are not disclosed.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.

9. 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. 11 checks were fully supported, and 9 checks remained unverified.

   94.29% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

   View the detailed evidence and calculation

   20 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

   7.5429 of 8 weighted points. verified.

   Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.

   Competence contribution

   7.2000 of 7.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.3429 of 0.4800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 1.5238 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 11 fulfilled, 9 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 94.29 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 7.2000 competence + 0.3429 public accountability = 7.5429 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 9.C1 — not verified: The public disclosure is authorized, versioned, dated, and controlled.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   2. Requirement 9.C2 — not verified: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   3. Requirement 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 9.O1 — fulfilled: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.

      Evidence route: Public source. Adheres to GSO, OIC/SMIIC, UAE, GAC, ISO, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia standards; Adheres to multiple international schemes and standards depending on the target market.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   3. Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 9.P1 — not verified: Religious or jurisprudential basis.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   2. Requirement 9.P2 — fulfilled: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.

      Evidence route: Public source. Adheres to multiple international schemes and standards depending on the target market.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   3. Requirement 9.P3 — fulfilled: Mechanical poultry slaughter.

      Evidence route: Public source. Accepts both manual and mechanical slaughter for poultry.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   4. Requirement 9.P4 — fulfilled: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.

      Evidence route: Public source. A Muslim is present saying the Tasmiyah while the cut is done by the machine.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   5. Requirement 9.P5 — fulfilled: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.

      Evidence route: Public source. Requires Muslim supervisors to be present during slaughter.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   6. Requirement 9.P6 — fulfilled: Stunning and reversibility.

      Evidence route: Public source. Stunning is allowed if it does not kill the animal and they can be revived; gas stunning is strictly prohibited.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   7. Requirement 9.P7 — fulfilled: Alive-at-cut control.

      Evidence route: Public source. Animals must be alive at the time of slaughter.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   8. Requirement 9.P8 — not verified: Minimum vessel requirement.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   9. Requirement 9.P9 — fulfilled: Pork and animal derivatives.

      Evidence route: Public source. Pork and Haram animal derivatives are not allowed; enzymes must be from Halal or microbial sources.

      Public sources: Source 1

   10. Requirement 9.P10 — fulfilled: Alcohol and ethanol.

       Evidence route: Public source. Ethanol is allowed below standard levels; non-intoxicating alcohols are allowed as processing aids.

       Public sources: Source 1

   11. Requirement 9.P11 — fulfilled: Processing aids and ingredient sources.

       Evidence route: Public source. All ingredients and processing aids must be verified as Halal.

       Public sources: Source 1

   12. Requirement 9.P12 — fulfilled: Shared lines and cross-contact.

       Evidence route: Public source. Contamination with Haram ingredients is prohibited.

       Public sources: Source 1

   13. Requirement 9.P13 — not verified: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   14. Requirement 9.P14 — not verified: Certificate-level position communication.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

   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. 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. 8 checks were fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 1 check remained unverified.

    91.50% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

    View the detailed evidence and calculation

    10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

    2.7450 of 3 weighted points. verified.

    Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 8 subrequirements: 10.C1, 10.C2, 10.C3, 10.C4, 10.C5, 10.O1, 10.O2, 10.O3.

    Competence contribution

    2.7000 of 2.7000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.0450 of 0.1800 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 2.6625 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 8 fulfilled, 1 partial, 1 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 91.50 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 2.7000 competence + 0.0450 public accountability = 2.7450 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

    A. Control assurance · 60 percent

    1. Requirement 10.C1 — fulfilled: Certificate templates contain required issuer, holder, site, product or activity scope, identifier, issue date, expiry date, and authorization.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    2. Requirement 10.C2 — fulfilled: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    3. Requirement 10.C3 — fulfilled: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    4. Requirement 10.C4 — fulfilled: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    5. Requirement 10.C5 — fulfilled: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 10.O1 — fulfilled: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    2. Requirement 10.O2 — fulfilled: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    3. Requirement 10.O3 — fulfilled: Directory and status records are maintained.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    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. ISWA provides a verification mechanism where clients can verify certification by submitting a form with specific details, but it is a request-based system rather than a live searchable directory.

       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: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

    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. 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. 8 checks were fully supported, and 2 checks remained unverified.

    90.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

    View the detailed evidence and calculation

    10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

    0.9000 of 1 weighted points. verified.

    Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 8 subrequirements: 11.C1, 11.C2, 11.C3, 11.C4, 11.C5, 11.O1, 11.O2, 11.O3.

    Competence contribution

    0.9000 of 0.9000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.0000 of 0.0600 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.8500 of 1 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 8 fulfilled, 2 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 90.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 0.9000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.9000 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: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    2. Requirement 11.C2 — fulfilled: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    3. Requirement 11.C3 — fulfilled: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    4. Requirement 11.C4 — fulfilled: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    5. Requirement 11.C5 — fulfilled: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 11.O1 — fulfilled: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    2. Requirement 11.O2 — fulfilled: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    3. Requirement 11.O3 — fulfilled: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    C. Public evidence · 15 percent

    1. Requirement 11.P1 — not verified: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

    2. Requirement 11.P2 — not verified: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.

       Evidence route: Not independently verified. No accepted evidence found in the provided authoritative sources.

    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. 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. All 8 checks were supported by the reviewed evidence. 1 check did not apply.

    96.00% 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.

    1.9200 of 2 weighted points. verified.

    Accreditation effect: Current exact-entity accreditation expressly supports 6 subrequirements: 12.C1, 12.C2, 12.C3, 12.C4, 12.O1, 12.O3.

    Competence contribution

    1.8000 of 1.8000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.1200 of 0.1200 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 2.0000 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 8 fulfilled, 1 not applicable.

    Why this metric earned 96.00 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 1.8000 competence + 0.1200 public accountability = 1.9200 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

    A. Control assurance · 60 percent

    1. Requirement 12.C1 — fulfilled: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    2. Requirement 12.C2 — fulfilled: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    3. Requirement 12.C3 — fulfilled: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    4. Requirement 12.C4 — fulfilled: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 12.O1 — fulfilled: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    2. Requirement 12.O2 — fulfilled: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.

       Evidence route: Authoritative source. Current GAC and BPJPH accreditation, current certificates, and public process materials demonstrate capacity.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    3. Requirement 12.O3 — fulfilled: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.

       Evidence route: Independent accreditation. Current exact-entity accreditation expressly maps this requirement within the verified active scope: GCC Accreditation Center (GAC) HPC 0035.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    C. Public evidence · 15 percent

    1. Requirement 12.P1 — fulfilled: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.

       Evidence route: Public source. ISWA has a long operating history, with the USA Halal Chamber formed in 1997 and the ISWA operating name beginning in 2005. The assessed operation is ISWA Halal Certification Department, located in Silver Spring, Maryland.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

    2. Requirement 12.P2 — not applicable: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.

       Evidence route: Not applicable. This is a confidentiality boundary rather than a demand to publish client volumes, payroll, or workload files; current exact-entity accreditation verifies capacity within its active scope.

    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.

Credibility Score interpretation

• Model B assigns 90.0000 of 90 competence-assurance points, 1.6000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 2.5179 of 6 public-accountability points.
• Every qualifying current independent exact-entity accreditation authority contributes proportionally against the five-authority national benchmark. 2 qualifying authorities contribute 1.6000 breadth points; overlapping requirements are not counted twice.
• 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.

Kosher relationships and who makes halal decisions

ISWA’s president profile mentions relationships with leaders in the kosher industry [6]. The relevant accountability question is whether halal-specific work stays under the halal certifier’s own qualified personnel, review process, and decision-making authority.

The reviewed ISWA materials meet that process-level test [8] [9]. They state that “a kosher certificate is not a halal certificate” [11], require ISWA’s own document review and onsite audit, require ISWA audit reports and clearance of nonconformities, and reserve certification for ISWA’s decision committee [8]. No reviewed evidence shows a kosher agency carrying out the controlling audit or making the halal decision.

What certification rules and halal positions are publicly disclosed

This disclosure review asks a question separate 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 governing basis and several central positions are public, but major criteria or version controls remain unavailable.

On governing documents, scope, and certificate communication, the reviewed sources say that ISWA adheres to GSO, OIC/SMIIC, UAE, GAC, ISO, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia standards. They also say certification is specific to certain plant locations and products, that multiple international schemes and standards apply depending on the target market, and that clients can verify certification by submitting a form with specific details. [11] [13]

Some remaining questions were not disclosed well enough to classify with confidence. ISWA 096 is mentioned, but its actual text or version date is not publicly disclosed. The materials mention Islamic Law (Sharia) but do not specify a particular madhhab, and they do not disclose how fully positions such as stunning or mechanical slaughter are communicated on certificates. This is a limit in the public evidence; it does not prove that the body has no internal rule.

On slaughter and poultry controls, the reviewed sources say that ISWA accepts both manual and mechanical slaughter for poultry; that a Muslim is present saying the Tasmiyah while the machine makes the cut; that stunning is allowed if it does not kill the animal and the animal can be revived; that gas stunning is strictly prohibited; that animals must be alive at the time of slaughter; and that Muslim supervisors must be present during slaughter. [13] [11]

One remaining question on slaughter was not publicly disclosed well enough to classify with confidence: the exact minimum vessel requirement for slaughter is not publicly detailed. This is a limit in the public evidence; it does not prove that the body has no internal rule.

On ingredients and the production environment, the reviewed sources say that pork and haram animal derivatives are not allowed; enzymes must come from halal or microbial sources; ethanol is allowed below standard levels; non-intoxicating alcohols are allowed as processing aids; all ingredients and processing aids must be verified as halal; and contamination with haram ingredients is prohibited. [13]

One remaining question about ingredients and the production environment was not publicly disclosed well enough to classify with confidence: specific ritual cleansing procedures are not publicly detailed. This is a limit in the public evidence; it does not prove that the body has no internal rule.

This disclosure measure considers whether a position is understandable to the public, not whether it is the most restrictive position. A disclosed position within a recognized scholarly range is not penalized simply because another body follows a different view.

What evidence could support a higher score

This section describes the evidence that could support a higher score for ISWA Halal Certification Department. It does not mean a control is absent just because the reviewed public record did not establish it. A submission must match the organization assessed, identify its dates and scope, and show who was responsible for implementation and decision-making.

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

• Metric 2 — Ownership and control: A current authoritative ownership filing or authenticated controlled record for ISWA Halal Certification Department could identify beneficial owners, ownership percentages, voting or governance rights, controlling persons, related entities, and conflict controls for the organization assessed.
• Metric 3 — Governance and accountable leadership: A current governing-body roster and organizational chart (organogram) for ISWA Halal Certification Department could identify accountable leaders, their roles, their appointment or authority basis, management responsibilities, and entity-level accountability for certification decisions.
• Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: A current personnel roster for ISWA Halal Certification Department, or an 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 ISWA Halal Certification Department records could identify the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, their qualifications and appointment, the jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, entity-level authority, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
• Metric 6 — Halal audit method and facility verification: A current controlled ISWA Halal Certification Department audit procedure, together with corroborating recent files, could show application and scope review, ingredient and process evaluation, onsite work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
• Metric 7 — Impartiality and decision separation: A current ISWA Halal Certification Department policy on impartiality and separation of decisions, together with implementation records, could identify conflict review, separation from consultancy, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and certification decision.
• Metric 9 — Public certification criteria and position disclosure: A current public declaration or equivalent methodology from ISWA Halal Certification Department 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 certificate directory or verification method from ISWA Halal Certification Department could show the certificate identifier, holder, site, products or scope, effective and expiry dates, live status, suspension or withdrawal, and enforceable controls on mark use and misuse.
• Metric 11 — Complaints, appeals, and corrections: A current public procedure from ISWA Halal Certification Department could identify routes for complaints, appeals, and corrections; 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 operating records from ISWA Halal Certification Department could show its timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and competent personnel capacity matched to that workload.

How to submit corrections or claim the certification body

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

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

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

Submitting corrections and evidence

ISWA Halal Certification Department may submit responsive records through the secure documentary-evidence form. USDHS evaluates material evidence under the same methodology whether it raises or lowers a score.

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

This assessment explains public evidence and organizational accountability. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard, an accreditation or certification decision, a religious ruling, or legal advice.

Frequently asked questions

Why does the assessment give ISWA a 94% Credibility Score, Grade A?

ISWA receives a high score because it has current GAC accreditation that applies to the organization assessed and BPJPH accreditation. These provide strong independent assurance about its legal identity, qualified personnel, Islamic authority, and halal audit controls. The score is limited mainly because ownership percentages, personnel rosters, and file-level audit details are not published, and because public certificate verification is request-based rather than a live directory.

Does the reviewed record show that ISWA currently has EIAC accreditation?

The current public records reviewed do not support treating EIAC HBN-CB-045 as a current accreditation for ISWA. EIAC’s current directory assigns that number to another body. This is a documented credential-status discrepancy, and ISWA’s score relies on the verified GAC and BPJPH accreditations instead.

Do the reviewed materials show ISWA handing halal audits to kosher agencies?

No. Although ISWA allows applicants to submit kosher certifications as supporting evidence, it expressly says that a kosher certificate is not a substitute for a halal certificate. ISWA requires its own onsite audit, clearance of nonconformities, and decision committee for halal certification.

Does ISWA publicly identify everyone involved in halal decisions?

ISWA publicly identifies its president and quality manager. It does not publish a complete roster of its auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic advisers, or decision-committee members, and it does not disclose the individuals who made the sampled final decisions.

How can a consumer check an ISWA certificate?

ISWA’s public verification system is request-based. Consumers must contact ISWA directly to check a certificate’s status because the organization does not provide a complete, searchable live directory of all current certificates and status actions.

References

1. ISWA Halal Certification Department, official website
2. ISWA Halal Certification Department, official notices
3. GAC accreditation certificate for ISWA Halal Certification Department
4. GAC scope of accreditation for ISWA Halal Certification Department
5. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Indonesia halal standards and accredited U.S. bodies
6. ISWA Halal Certification Department, About Us
7. ISWA Halal Certification Department, trademarks
8. ISWA Halal Certification Department, certification application
9. ISWA Halal Certification Department, halal supervision and certification
10. ISWA Halal Certification Department, complaints and appeals
11. ISWA Halal Certification Department, halal certification guidelines
12. Emirates International Accreditation Center, current directory
13. Welcome to the ISWA Halal Certification Department
14. Why Halal

Related audit-readiness guidance

• How USDHS Calculates a Halal Certification Body Credibility Score
• 2026 U.S. Halal Certification Bodies Ranked by Credibility Score
• American Halal Foundation Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 96% Credibility Score, Grade A

Browse all USDHS Insights