RACS USA Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 20% Credibility Score, Grade F

A separate U.S. operation with its own accountability

Halal certification depends on qualified people, Islamic authority, a halal-specific audit, an impartial decision, and records that connect the final certificate to the work performed. Publicly verifiable evidence matters because consumers and clients need to be able to identify the certifier and understand what its certificate covers. This assessment applies those accountability questions to RACS Quality Certificates Issuing Services LLC-USA.

RACS Quality Certificates Issuing Services LLC-USA operates a U.S. branch at 5625 Cypress Creek Parkway, Suite 210, Houston, Texas, and is part of the global RACS network. The reviewed GAC records identify the U.S. organization as HPC 0020, but the linked certificate expired May 24, 2019. A credential held by another RACS office is not transferred to the U.S. organization.

Which organization and accreditation this review covers

The certification organization assessed here is RACS Quality Certificates Issuing Services LLC-USA. GAC's legacy directory labels HPC 20 ACTIVE, but the expiry field in that same row and the linked accreditation certificate both state May 24, 2019. For deciding whether the accreditation is current, the dated issuer certificate governs; therefore, no current comprehensive accreditation is applied. A renewed certificate and a current scope schedule could change this finding.

Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment

RACS Quality Certificates Issuing Services LLC-USA Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 20% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated

High confidence. RACS Quality Certificates Issuing Services LLC-USA receives a 20% Credibility Score, Grade F. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization, so the result relies on the reviewed record of controls, operations, and public information. That record provides only limited support for the organization’s qualifications and public accountability. The available material does not yet provide enough substantiated information for a reader to rely on the score alone. A not-verified finding reflects what the reviewed record did not establish; it does not prove that an internal control or document does not exist.

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 19.8088 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 20%.

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. 2 checks were fully supported, 2 checks had partial support, and 4 checks remained unverified.

   32.12% 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.

   1.6059 of 5 weighted points. not publicly verified.

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

   Competence contribution

   1.4559 of 4.5000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.1500 of 0.3000 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 1.7500 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 2 fulfilled, 2 partial, 4 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 32.12 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 1.4559 competence + 0.1500 public accountability = 1.6059 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 1.C1 — partial: The certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity.

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S.-hosted RACS rules identify “RACS LLC,” but the complete legal bridge to the assessed RACS Quality Certificates Issuing Services LLC-USA remains unresolved.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 1.C2 — not verified: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   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. The U.S.-hosted RACS rules connect the RACS operating name to a U.S. certification document, but the complete DBA and affiliate bridge is not established.

      Public sources: Source 1

   4. Requirement 1.C4 — not verified: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 1.O1 — not verified: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed U.S. rules document does not itself establish that current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same exact U.S. issuer.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. RACS Quality Certificates Issuing Services LLC-USA operates a U.S. branch at 5625 Cypress Creek Parkway, Suite 210, Houston, Texas.

      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. The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name from the GAC accreditation and the RACS USA official website.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

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

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   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.

   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 direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   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 direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   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 direct public or internal evidence found.

   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 direct public or internal evidence found.

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

   20.56% 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.

   2.8782 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

   2.6682 of 12.6000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.2100 of 0.8400 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 3.0450 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 2 partial, 7 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 20.56 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 2.6682 competence + 0.2100 public accountability = 2.8782 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. The Branch Manager is named publicly, establishing senior leadership.

      Public sources: Source 1

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules identify operational roles and a certification decision committee, but do not provide a complete organizational structure and reporting lines.

      Public sources: Source 1

   3. Requirement 3.C3 — not verified: Certification decision authority is assigned.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   4. Requirement 3.C4 — not verified: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   5. Requirement 3.C5 — not verified: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 3.O1 — not verified: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   2. Requirement 3.O2 — not verified: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   3. Requirement 3.O3 — not verified: Management review and internal oversight occur.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The Branch Manager is named publicly, but full governing body is not detailed.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 3.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   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. None of the 14 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.

   0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.

   View the detailed evidence and calculation

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

   0.0000 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.

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

   Competence contribution

   0.0000 of 16.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 1.0800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 0.0000 of 18 points. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 14 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

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

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 4.C1 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for technical auditors.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   2. Requirement 4.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   3. Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   4. Requirement 4.C4 — not verified: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   5. Requirement 4.C5 — not verified: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   6. Requirement 4.C6 — not verified: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   7. Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 4.O1 — not verified: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   2. Requirement 4.O2 — not verified: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   3. Requirement 4.O3 — not verified: Assignments match sector and scope competence.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   4. Requirement 4.O4 — not verified: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 4.P1 — not verified: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   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 direct public or internal evidence found.

   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. 7 checks had partial support, and 4 checks remained unverified.

   34.41% 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.

   6.1941 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

   6.1941 of 16.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 1.0800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 5.8500 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 7 partial, 4 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 34.41 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 6.1941 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 6.1941 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules state that RACS maintains a Sharia adviser and includes Islamic scholars in the decision committee, but do not identify qualifications or establish the full appointment controls.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 5.C2 — not verified: Muslim decision makers are used where required.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed U.S. rules do not expressly establish the religious status requirement for decision makers, and no sensitive attribute is inferred from titles or names.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules describe a committee including Islamic scholars and state that it has final decision authority, but the full composition and appointment framework are not public.

      Public sources: Source 1

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules describe a certification decision path involving Islamic scholars, but disputed-question and escalation controls are not fully documented.

      Public sources: Source 1

   5. Requirement 5.C5 — not verified: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed U.S. rules do not establish that Islamic authority is protected from sales and client pressure.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules identify the certification decision committee as final authority, but the exact separation between halal and conformity decisions is not fully documented.

      Public sources: Source 1

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules state that a Sharia adviser and Islamic scholars participate in certification functions, but sampled assignments are not available.

      Public sources: Source 1

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules describe committee review and final decision, but sampled records showing documented and implemented expert decisions are unavailable.

      Public sources: Source 1

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules place final halal or haram determination with a committee that includes Islamic scholars, but the non-override control is not expressly stated.

      Public sources: Source 1

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

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

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   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. 1 check was fully supported, 4 checks had partial support, and 10 checks remained unverified.

   15.71% 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.

   2.1988 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

   1.7788 of 12.6000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.4200 of 0.8400 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 2.7300 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 4 partial, 10 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 15.71 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 1.7788 competence + 0.4200 public accountability = 2.1988 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 6.C1 — partial: Application and application review are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules document application and contract review, but complete controlled forms and revision controls for the exact U.S. entity are not established.

      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 direct public or internal evidence found.

   3. Requirement 6.C3 — not verified: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules require document review and facility audits, but complete halal-specific audit tools and exact-entity control remain unavailable.

      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 direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules describe audit findings, nonconformities, and corrective-action verification, but complete controlled report forms are unavailable.

      Public sources: Source 1

   7. Requirement 6.C7 — not verified: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules describe surveillance and recertification, but the exact U.S. entity’s current schedule and implementation controls are not fully established.

      Public sources: Source 1

   9. Requirement 6.C9 — not verified: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   10. Requirement 6.C10 — not verified: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 6.O1 — not verified: The current certification system implements each applicable control.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   2. Requirement 6.O2 — not verified: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   3. Requirement 6.O3 — not verified: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The website outlines the certification procedure.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 6.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   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. 2 checks had partial support, and 9 checks remained unverified.

   10.59% 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.

   0.6353 of 6 weighted points. not publicly verified.

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

   Competence contribution

   0.6353 of 5.4000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 0.3600 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Impartiality, conflicts, and independence earns 0.6000 of 6 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 2 partial, 9 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 10.59 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.6353 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.6353 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 7.C1 — not verified: An impartiality policy and risk process exist.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed U.S. rules do not provide an impartiality policy and risk-assessment process.

   2. Requirement 7.C2 — not verified: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed U.S. rules do not establish an operating impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules state that RACS does not provide consulting services, but complete conflict controls are not public.

      Public sources: Source 1

   4. Requirement 7.C4 — not verified: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed U.S. rules do not establish controls for financial, commercial, and relationship threats.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules separate evaluation and final certification committee review, but complete recusal and independence rules are not public.

      Public sources: Source 1

   6. Requirement 7.C6 — not verified: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed U.S. rules do not establish impartiality and confidentiality controls for all outsourced personnel.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 7.O1 — not verified: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No representative record shows periodic review of impartiality risks.

   2. Requirement 7.O2 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are documented.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No representative record shows documented conflicts and recusals.

   3. Requirement 7.O3 — not verified: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.

      Evidence route: Not independently verified. No representative record shows that decisions remained independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 7.P1 — not verified: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   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. 5 checks had partial support, and 5 checks remained unverified.

   24.00% 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.

   0.7200 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

   0.6750 of 2.7000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0450 of 0.1800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 0.7500 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 5 partial, 5 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 24.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.6750 competence + 0.0450 public accountability = 0.7200 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 8.C1 — partial: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S.-hosted RHR-01 document identifies a revision, issue date, and governing UAE/GSO standards, but the complete legal bridge and current standard register are not established.

      Public sources: Source 1

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S.-hosted RHR-01 document defines claimed food, ingredient, pharmaceutical, packaging, and related scope, but the authoritative exact-entity scope remains unresolved.

      Public sources: Source 1

   3. Requirement 8.C3 — not verified: Exclusions and limitations are defined.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. Public documents state operation under ESMA, GAC, EIAC, and SFDA schemes, but complete control details are not established.

      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 direct public or internal evidence found.

   6. Requirement 8.C6 — not verified: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

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

      Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules require certificates and audits to reference applicable standards and scope, but representative current U.S. files are unavailable.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 8.O2 — not verified: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   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 governing basis and scope are partially public, but major criteria or version controls remain unavailable and there is a scope mismatch.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 8.P2 — not verified: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   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. 10 checks were fully supported, and 10 checks remained unverified.

   54.18% 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.

   4.3341 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

   0.2400 of 0.4800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 4.4667 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 10 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 54.18 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 4.0941 competence + 0.2400 public accountability = 4.3341 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 uses versioned and dated documents: SOP 43 Rev 03 (Sept 2021) and RHR-01 Rev 00 (May 2023).

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   2. Requirement 9.C2 — fulfilled: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.

      Evidence route: Public source. Identifies the governing basis as Islamic Sharia (Quran and Hadith) and technical authority as GSO/UAE 2055-1 and GSO/UAE 993.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

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

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

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

      Evidence route: Public source. Public criteria match the operative schemes: ESMA, GAC, EIAC, and SFDA schemes.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

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

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 9.P1 — fulfilled: Religious or jurisprudential basis.

      Evidence route: Public source. Discloses religious basis as Islamic Sharia (Quran and Hadith).

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

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

      Evidence route: Public source. Discloses operation under supplementary destination-market schemes: ESMA, GAC, EIAC, and SFDA.

      Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2

   3. Requirement 9.P3 — not verified: Mechanical poultry slaughter.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   4. Requirement 9.P4 — not verified: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   5. Requirement 9.P5 — not verified: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   6. Requirement 9.P6 — not verified: Stunning and reversibility.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   7. Requirement 9.P7 — not verified: Alive-at-cut control.

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

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

      Evidence route: Public source. Publicly prohibits pork and derivatives.

      Public sources: Source 1

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

       Evidence route: Public source. Publicly prohibits intoxicating drinks and alcohol.

       Public sources: Source 1

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

       Evidence route: Public source. Publicly allows biotechnology products and enzymes if free from prohibited contaminants and not derived from unacceptably slaughtered animals.

       Public sources: Source 1

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

       Evidence route: Public source. Requires processing and storage to use utensils/machinery cleansed according to Islamic law, free from contamination with Najis.

       Public sources: Source 1

   13. Requirement 9.P13 — fulfilled: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.

       Evidence route: Public source. Requires cleansing according to Islamic law.

       Public sources: Source 1

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

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

   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. 2 checks were fully supported, 2 checks had partial support, and 6 checks remained unverified.

    24.53% 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.

    0.7359 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

    0.6459 of 2.7000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.0900 of 0.1800 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 0.8350 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 2 fulfilled, 2 partial, 6 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 24.53 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 0.6459 competence + 0.0900 public accountability = 0.7359 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 direct public or internal evidence found.

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

       Evidence route: Public source. The website lists certified clients with dates.

       Public sources: Source 1

    3. Requirement 10.C3 — not verified: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    4. Requirement 10.C4 — not verified: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    5. Requirement 10.C5 — not verified: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 10.O1 — not verified: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    2. Requirement 10.O2 — not verified: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

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

       Evidence route: Public source. The website lists certified clients with dates, providing good operational and public evidence.

       Public sources: Source 1

    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 website lists certified clients with dates, providing good operational and public evidence, though a live search tool is absent.

       Public sources: Source 1

    2. Requirement 10.P2 — partial: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.

       Evidence route: Public source. The website lists certified clients with dates, providing good operational and public evidence, though a live search tool is absent.

       Public sources: Source 1

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

11. 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. 3 checks had partial support, and 7 checks remained unverified.

    9.35% 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.

    0.0935 of 1 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

    0.0635 of 0.9000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.0300 of 0.0600 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.1350 of 1 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 3 partial, 7 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 9.35 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 0.0635 competence + 0.0300 public accountability = 0.0935 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

    A. Control assurance · 60 percent

    1. Requirement 11.C1 — partial: Complaints and appeals have documented procedures.

       Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules state that complaint and appeal procedures are available, but the complete controlled procedures were not located.

       Public sources: Source 1

    2. Requirement 11.C2 — not verified: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    3. Requirement 11.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    4. Requirement 11.C4 — not verified: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    5. Requirement 11.C5 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 11.O1 — not verified: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    2. Requirement 11.O2 — not verified: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    3. Requirement 11.O3 — not verified: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    C. Public evidence · 15 percent

    1. Requirement 11.P1 — partial: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.

       Evidence route: Public source. A contact method exists but no formal complaint or appeal procedure is published on the website.

       Public sources: Source 1

    2. Requirement 11.P2 — partial: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.

       Evidence route: Public source. A contact method exists but no formal complaint or appeal procedure is published on the website.

       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. 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. 2 checks were fully supported, 2 checks had partial support, and 5 checks remained unverified.

    20.65% 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.

    0.4129 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

    0.3529 of 1.8000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.0600 of 0.1200 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 0.4833 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 2 fulfilled, 2 partial, 5 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 20.65 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 0.3529 competence + 0.0600 public accountability = 0.4129 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

    A. Control assurance · 60 percent

    1. Requirement 12.C1 — not verified: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    2. Requirement 12.C2 — not verified: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    3. Requirement 12.C3 — not verified: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    4. Requirement 12.C4 — not verified: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    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. The current U.S.-hosted rules describe certification delivery functions, but direct current workload and staffing evidence is not available.

       Public sources: Source 1

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

       Evidence route: Public source. The public list of certified clients demonstrates active operations.

       Public sources: Source 1

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

       Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. rules describe surveillance and recertification, but representative current implementation and management-review records are unavailable.

       Public sources: Source 1

    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. Operating history and service scope are publicly identifiable through the certified clients list and website.

       Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

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

       Evidence route: Public source. No direct public or internal evidence found.

    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 18.5638 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.0000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 1.2450 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.

Overall finding

RACS Quality Certificates Issuing Services LLC-USA receives a 20% Credibility Score, Grade F. The reviewed record identifies the U.S. operation and some public halal criteria, but this review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization because GAC HPC 0020 expired May 24, 2019. Important public gaps remain on ownership, responsible personnel, Islamic decision authority, certificate controls, and the relationship between broad service claims and the documented historical scope.

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

What the public can see about 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 important halal positions that govern this organization's certifications? The governing basis and several central positions are public, but important criteria or controls over versions remain unavailable.

The reviewed sources establish the following about governing documents, scope, and certificate communication: RACS certifies according to GSO/UAE 2055-1 and GSO/UAE 993; uses SOP 43 Rev 03 (Sept 2021) and RHR-01 Rev 00 (May 2023); is based on Islamic Sharia (Quran and Hadith); certifies Halal Food, including slaughtering and various processing categories, and Halal Cosmetics; operates under ESMA, GAC, EIAC, and SFDA schemes; and maintains a list of certified clients on the RACS website. [5] [6]

The other reviewed questions could not be classified with confidence because they were not publicly disclosed. This identifies a limit in the public evidence; it does not prove that the organization has no internal rule.

The other reviewed questions could not be classified with confidence because they were not publicly disclosed on the RACS USA site outside of the GSO reference. This identifies a limit in the public evidence; it does not prove that the organization has no internal rule.

The reviewed sources establish the following about ingredients and the production environment: pork and its derivatives are prohibited; intoxicating drinks and alcohol are prohibited; biotechnology products and enzymes are allowed if they are free from prohibited contaminants and are not derived from unacceptably slaughtered animals; and processing and storage must use utensils and machinery cleansed according to Islamic law and free from contamination with Najis. Cleansing according to Islamic law is required. [5]

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

Evidence that could change the remaining findings

This section describes evidence that could support a higher score for RACS USA. It does not mean a control is absent simply because the reviewed public record did not establish it. Any submission must match the organization assessed, 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 can support assurance about controls or operations when they can be authenticated, but they do not create public-transparency credit unless the organization makes the important information public.

• Metric 1 — Legal identity and operating status: A current authoritative registry or regulator record for RACS USA should show the exact legal name, entity number, jurisdiction, formation date, active status, operating name, and any required certification-business registration not already established.
• Metric 2 — Ownership and control: A current authoritative ownership filing or authenticated controlled record for RACS USA should identify beneficial owners, ownership percentages, voting or governance rights, controlling persons, related organizations, and conflict controls for the organization assessed.
• Metric 3 — Governance and accountable leadership: A current RACS USA governing-body roster and organizational chart should identify accountable leaders, their roles, the basis for their appointment or authority, management responsibilities, and organization-level accountability for certification decisions.
• Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: A current RACS USA personnel roster or independently assessed controlled record should 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 RACS USA records should identify the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, their qualifications, appointment, 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 RACS USA audit procedure and corroborating recent files should show application and scope review, ingredient and process evaluation, on-site work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
• Metric 7 — Impartiality and decision separation: A current RACS USA policy on impartiality and decision separation, plus implementation records, should 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 RACS USA standard or scheme record should identify its 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 RACS USA declaration or equivalent methodology should 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 RACS USA certificate directory or verification method should 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 RACS USA procedure for complaints, appeals, and corrections should 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 RACS USA operating records should show the timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and qualified personnel capacity matched to that workload.

Submitting corrections, appeals, or an ownership claim

RACS Quality Certificates Issuing Services LLC-USA or another affected party may submit responsive records through the secure documentary-evidence form. Material evidence is assessed under the same methodology whether it would raise or lower 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 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 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.

Frequently asked questions

Why did the review give RACS Quality Certificates Issuing Services LLC-USA a 20% Credibility Score and Grade F?

This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. The linked GAC HPC 0020 certificate expired May 24, 2019, so the score is based on the same verified control, operational, and public evidence used for other organizations without current accreditation.

Did this review verify current accreditation for RACS Quality Certificates Issuing Services LLC-USA?

This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization by the source cutoff. The legacy GAC directory labels HPC 20 ACTIVE, but its expiry field and linked certificate show May 24, 2019; the expired credential receives no current score credit.

Does a high score make every certificate valid?

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

Why does the review not include private documents?

The methodology relies on public records and publicly verifiable evidence. It also allows the organization to submit responsive controlled documents through the secure documentary-evidence form.

What could help the certifier improve its score?

The score could improve if the organization publishes full ownership details and exact personnel identities and authorizations, and resolves the scope mismatch between marketing claims and specific accreditation.

References

1. GAC Accreditation Schedule HPC 0020. GCC Accreditation Center.
2. RACS USA Official Website - Contact. RACS USA.
3. RACS USA Official Website - Certified Clients. RACS USA.
4. RACS USA Official Website - Halal Certification. RACS USA.
5. RULES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY FOR HALAL PRODUCTS
6. PRODUCT CERTIFICATION SCHEME FOR HALAL PRODUCTS
7. GAC legacy directory, RACS USA HPC 20
8. GAC accreditation certificate HPC 0020, expired May 24, 2019

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