Halal certification and complexity

?? A single definition of halal food does not exist and certification processes differ globally, depending on the preferred definition. In broad terms, in order for food to be halal it must meet specific requirements at every stage: preparation, slaughter, cleaning, processing, handling, transportation and distribution. Thus it is a complex process (Latif et al., 2014).

A comparison of global certification requirements across nine categories and a number of different countries found significant differences in what was required in order for foods to be certified halal. Notably, Asia had the strictest, Australia moderate and Europe the laxest certification requirements (Latif et al., 2014). This demonstrates the complexity of branding a business halal, as the meaning of the term differs cross-culturally and within different interpretations of sharia.

Halal, meaning ‘permitted’ in general, is a word with multiple, complex meanings when it is applied to food. Halal is a religious issue, stemming from Qur’anic verses, and in the modern world it is also a brand, a stamp of certified approval and a measure of religious identity (Hanzaee and Ramezani, 2011). It is also a credence quality attribute, which means that it is impossible for the consumer to know – before or after consumption – whether a product is halal or not. They must rely on labelling and other external information. This information must also come from a trustworthy source (Bonne and Verbeke, 2008b). There are multiple meanings of the term halal, and these meanings are difficult to untangle.

In its most broad Islamic sense, halal food is food which meets the standards outlined in the relevant verses of the Quran. These most significantly relate to the absence of pork or pork derivatives, and the correct method of slaughtering other meats. In order to be considered halal, animals must be slaughtered by an incision to the throat with a knife while a prayer in the name of God is uttered over it. This must be carried out by a Muslim (Shafie and Othman, 2006).

However, some interpretations also require the head of the animal to be orientated in a certain way, along with other small but significant requirements. There are also debates among halal producers as to whether the animal should be stunned prior to slaughter (Bonne and Verbeke, 2008b). In the European Union (EU), the law requires that all animals must be stunned before slaughter, which impacts how halal meat is produced. There are, however, religious exemptions in some countries for halal slaughter, which some halal producers take advantage of and others do not (Bonne and Verbeke, 2008b).

At the next level of complexity is the idea of halal as a brand. Branding is notably separate from any form of regulation or oversight and is not related to certification. The word ‘halal’ is not a protected or copyrighted term and so it can technically be used by any manufacturer or restaurant owner. The word might be simply a brand name and not mean Islamic halal. In that case, the food might not meet Islamic standards. This possibility leads to a lack of trust among some Muslims regarding halal labelling and variations in trust towards the various secular and Islamic certification bodies (Ali, 2014, Bonne and Verbeke, 2008a, Bonne et al., 2008). Indeed, mislabelled foods and ‘implied halal’ have been raised as major issues in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries (Chuah et al., 2016, Shafie and Othman, 2006). In a recent Malaysian study, 112 of 143 tested meat products contained ingredients that were not included on the labelling. Some even contained ingredients that are haram in Islamic law (Chuah et al., 2016). For Muslims, this can be a serious religious issue if they adhere strongly to a halal diet, and it is also a serious health and safety issue if foodstuffs are undeclared or mislabelled. This lack of consistency in approach allows indirect branding to take place, as noted in Malaysia. This occurs when companies use apparent Qur’anic verses or an apparent Islamic look to imply that a food is halal compliant without ever stating clearly that it is or is not (Shafie and Othman, 2006). Clearly, the aim is to attract Muslim customers who do not check their foods too carefully. In addition, where research has been conducted with proprietors of halal restaurants, different interpretations of halal have been expressed, demonstrating the various understandings of halal in different cultural manifestations of Islam (Zannierah Syed Marzuki et al., 2012b).

Research has highlighted a desire among Muslim consumers for a global, recognisable and trustworthy halal brand that clearly denotes that a product is sharia compliant: “a symbol, some icon … as a trust mark being placed on the halal products so that Muslims would know that such products are halal or acceptable for the Muslim community” (Cheng and Low, 2008). The desire for collaboration and consistency across halal producers and companies is clear in the lack of general trust that researchers have found (Cheng and Low, 2008). This is the case in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries. As a result, halal branding, instead of being simple, is in fact confusing for consumers in some cases (Ali, 2014).

The strategic usefulness of halal as a brand has been widely noted (Wilson and Liu, 2010) and there have been attempts, both theoretical and practical, to specify a clear definition and conceptualisation of halal as a brand. Alserhan (2010) produced an initial conceptual framework for understanding and defining halal as a brand, after noting that traditional brand theory is too narrow to apply fully to the idea of halal. Broadly, his framework outlines three dimensions for halal branding: compliance (with sharia and certification), origin and customer (specifically a Muslim). This fits into the debates surrounding Islamic marketing, which are outlined in chapter 3. However, in its current state, halal cannot yet be seen as a brand in and of itself. Its cultural meanings, practices and uses are too broad and multi-faceted. If halal does become a global brand, there is potential for a traditional form to emerge (Wilson and Liu, 2010). Attempts are being made to produce a global standard for halal certification by, for example, the World Halal Council, Global Halal Certification, the Halal Authority Board and the Islamic Halal Integrity Alliance. The last-mentioned organisation has developed the IHI Alliance Halal Standard in conjunction with the International Organization for Standardization (Alliance, 2016). As yet, none of these has become a global standard, but there is potential for it to do so in the future.

The size of the halal food market has been estimated at USD $150 billion a year, with a projected annual growth rate of 2.9% (Mukherjee, 2014). Another estimate has suggested that the global halal industry is worth USD $2.1 trillion (Fathi et al., 2016). This shows that there is a serious absence of reliable estimates of halal market and its future.

The first legal step towards defining halal began in the form of halal compliance certification. This process is offered by various organisations, some voluntary and some government-based. Certification aims to ensure that everything labelled halal within a certain jurisdiction meets basic standards. These certifications are driven by consumer demand. Research has shown that consumers are willing to pay a 13% premium for certified halal foods. Indeed, if the trust regarding the quality of meat in supermarkets is low, more people will be willing to pay extra for certified halal meat at Islamic owned and operated businesses (Verbeke et al., 2013). They are also willing to pay a premium for halal foods certified as being transported and stored in sharia-compliant ways (Fathi et al., 2016).

Certification is a contentious issue in many parts of the world, including Australia. Certification bodies vary and they have been criticised for not being consistent. Inconsistency arises because there is a wide variation in the strictness requirements of different certification bodies (as a recent comparative analysis of nine global certification bodies revealed). For example, while all nine certification bodies require there to be no contamination during food transport, only five require that halal foods should only be transported and stored with other halal foods, and only one forbids stunning animals prior to slaughter (Latif et al., 2014). Therefore, foods certified as halal by The Halal Monitoring Committee (HMC) in the UK would not be certified by Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (JAKIM). This is an issue confounded further by the fact that many countries, including Australia, do not have a centralised government-run halal certification body. Instead, they have multiple third-party certification bodies, most of which are religious in nature and some of which charge for certification (Australian Food and Grocery Council, n.d.). The Australian Senate listed 22 certifying bodies in Australia in 2015 (Committee, 2015). Furthermore, these certifications are voluntary. There is no requirement for food which proclaims itself halal to be certified by any official body (Australian Food and Grocery Council, n.d.). This has been a difficult issue In Australia, and a recent inquiry by the Australian Senate raised questions about the lack of transparency and accountability in third-party certification and was wary of bodies who charge fees for certification (Committee, 2015). The Senate committee recommended that the Australian government take control of halal certification, standardise it and fully oversee it. Even where halal certification is standardised by the government, issues still arise regarding enforcement and monitoring. In Malaysia, which has the strictest global requirements for halal certification through the government-run JAKIM, the lack of enforcement or punishment for breaking halal rules has been noted (Shafie and Othman, 2006). It results from inadequate staffing.

Halal certification remains a complex and multifaceted concept, not even applied consistently within countries. Individuals, cultures, companies and certifying bodies all have different requirements for what they consider to be halal and these requirements are sometimes fluid. There is also a lack of trust and collaboration around the issue of halal, between companies and between companies and consumers. At its most basic, however, halal requires – according to sharia law – adherence to simple rules regarding the slaughter and contents of food.

Halal certification becomes a matter of antecedence to halal businesses only when there is heavy demand from consumers for proof that the food they are being offered is genuinely halal. When it is a Muslim restaurant, halal is automatically assumed, and consumers, including Muslims, may not insist on having halal certification verified. In the case of non–Muslim-owned restaurants, only Muslims may want that assurance. A large number of non-Muslim consumers might be satisfied by oral assurance, even if not truly certified. However, the bulk of halal businesses in Australia are dependent on non-Muslim customers due to the low population of Muslims in Australia. Such circumstances could lead to false claims, fake certificates and fake products, if halal certification is insisted upon. However, the bulk of these restaurants are likely to want to avoid the cost of certification, especially if certification is in effect unnecessary. This means that halal restaurants vary in the matter of certification, ranging from no certification, giving oral assurance, displaying a logo, offering a separate halal menu, offering some certification (fake, perhaps) to showing a proper and true certificate. The consequences on business performance of these differences in halal certifications might not be related to the degree of trustworthiness of the certification, but it might affect the trust a consumer has in a particular restaurant that it is offering halal, whether or not it has a certificate.

?