HRS 1:2026 — Annex G
Complaints, appeals, and public reporting
Public consultation draft — draft v0.1 — issued 2026-09-07
This is a consultation draft, not an operative standard
The scheme described here is not yet certifying. No certificates have been issued and the Approved Supplier Register is not yet populated. Nothing in this document may be relied on as evidence of certification.
It is published for comment before it is finalised, because a certification standard that cannot be read by the people it governs is not a standard. Clause 12.2 commits us to publishing it; we would rather publish it early and be corrected.
Comments are invited until 2 November 2026. See How to respond. Passages marked ⚖️ are open questions on which we are specifically seeking views. Passages marked 📋 will be reconciled against OIC/SMIIC standards before issue.
This document is a scheme design. It is not a fatwa and does not purport to state Islamic law; questions of Shari'ah are for our Shari'ah Committee, whose rulings will be published with their reasoning.
Companion to HRS 1:2026 draft v0.2, clause 12.6. Required by OIC/SMIIC 2:2019.
G1. Three different things, deliberately separated
| Who raises it | About what | Decided by | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public report | Anyone — consumer, employee, competitor | A certified establishment or a supplier | Investigation team |
| Complaint | Anyone | Us — our conduct, an auditor, our process | Complaints officer, outside the audit line |
| Appeal | A certified or applicant party only | A decision we made about them | Appeal panel |
Collapsing these is the common failure. A consumer reporting pork in a kebab and a restaurant disputing its suspension are not the same process and must not share a queue.
G2. Public reports
G2.1 Channels
Web form on the register (every entry carries a "report a concern" link), email, phone, and in-app via Süfrə. Anonymous reports are accepted and investigated.
Anonymity matters more here than in most schemes: the people best placed to see a breach are kitchen staff, who are often migrant, often on insecure contracts, and have everything to lose. A scheme that only accepts named reports will not hear from them.
G2.2 Triage — within 2 working days
| Grade | Criteria | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Urgent | Alleged prohibited material served; false claim reaching consumers now; alleged falsified records | Unannounced audit within 5 working days |
| Standard | Alleged procedural breach without immediate consumer impact | Investigated at or before next surveillance audit |
| Out of scope | Food quality, price, service, staff conduct | Reporter told, and directed to AQTA where food safety is alleged |
G2.3 Investigation
- Conducted by someone who did not perform the establishment's last audit
- The establishment is not told the reporter's identity, and where a report is credible and urgent, is not forewarned of the visit
- Malicious or competitor-driven reports are still investigated; a pattern of them from one source is recorded but never grounds to stop investigating
G2.4 Outcome
- Non-conformities graded per HRS 1 clause 11 and acted on
- Named reporters told the outcome in outline, within 30 days
- Where suspension or withdrawal results, the register is updated and it is public — that is the whole point of clause 11.3
- Where nothing is found, that is recorded too, so a pattern of unfounded reports about one establishment is visible
G3. Complaints about us
G3.1 Anyone may complain about our conduct, our auditors' conduct, our impartiality, our fees, or our process.
G3.2 Received by a named complaints officer who is not in the audit or certification line.
G3.3 Acknowledged in 5 working days; resolved in 30, or the delay explained in writing.
G3.4 Complaints alleging breach of clause 12 — impartiality, undisclosed interest, consultancy sold to a client, a favour done — go directly to the Technical Committee, not to management. This is not negotiable and the route is published.
G3.5 A register of complaints and their outcomes is maintained and summarised publicly each year: how many, what kind, what changed.
§15.10 of the Wiley handbook is a catalogue of certifiers who lost credibility privately, over years, while nobody could see it happening. G3.5 is cheap, uncomfortable, and the thing that would have surfaced any of those cases early.
G4. Appeals
G4.1 Who and when. A certified or applicant establishment or supplier may appeal a refusal, a non-conformity grading, a suspension, or a withdrawal, within 21 days of written notice.
G4.2 Effect. An appeal does not suspend a suspension or withdrawal. Where the risk is that consumers are being misled, the precautionary position holds until the appeal is decided. The register shows "suspended — under appeal".
G4.3 The panel. Three members: one Technical Committee member, one Shariah Committee member where the appeal turns on a religious question, and one person independent of us. None may have taken the original decision or conducted the audit (HRS 1 cl. 12.5).
G4.4 Process. Written submission; the appellant may attend and be accompanied; the panel may commission a fresh audit by a different auditor. Decided within 45 days.
G4.5 Outcomes. Upheld — decision reversed, register corrected, and the correction is published with the same prominence as the original entry. Partly upheld — grading amended. Dismissed — with written reasons.
G4.6 Appeal decisions that turn on interpretation are published in anonymised form and become guidance. Over time this is how the standard acquires case law rather than drifting.
G4.7 There is no second appeal. Ordinary legal rights are unaffected.
G5. Whistleblowers
G5.1 Reports from employees of certified establishments or suppliers are handled with strict confidentiality; identity is not disclosed to the employer at any stage.
G5.2 HRS 1 clause 4.1.1 prohibits detriment to any employee raising a compliance concern. Evidence that an establishment has dismissed, demoted, or otherwise penalised an employee for reporting to us is itself a Critical non-conformity.
G5.3 Investigations arising from employee reports are conducted so as not to identify the source — by folding the issue into a broader unannounced audit rather than arriving to inspect one station.
G5.3 is an operational detail that decides whether G5 works at all. An auditor who walks in and goes straight to the one fridge has identified the reporter to the manager as surely as naming them.
G6. Consultation questions
- The independent appeal panel member (G4.3) — who? A lawyer, an academic, a respected religious figure outside the Shariah Committee? Independence must be real and visible.
- Publishing unfounded reports (G2.4) — transparent, but exposes establishments to reputational harm from reports that were investigated and dismissed. Aggregate only?
- Süfrə in-app reporting (G2.1) — a strong feature and a volume risk. Needs triage capacity sized before launch, or urgent reports will queue behind complaints about slow service.
- Timeframes — 5 days for an urgent unannounced audit assumes auditor availability that a small team may not have at launch. Confirm against actual staffing.
G7. In preparation
- G-F1 Public report form (web and in-app)
- G-F2 Triage matrix and investigation procedure
- G-F3 Complaint acknowledgement and outcome templates
- G-F4 Appeal notice, submission form, and panel terms of reference
- G-F5 Whistleblower handling procedure (internal, restricted)
- G-F6 Annual transparency report template (per G3.5)