Comparative Policy Analysis of Halal Food Industry Governance in Malaysia and Indonesia
Abstract
Halal food governance increasingly combines religious compliance with consumer protection, food-safety assurance, supply-chain integrity, and industrial competitiveness. Malaysia and Indonesia are major Southeast Asian halal markets, yet they organize certification and industrial development through different policy architectures. This study compares the halal food policy frameworks of the two countries across five dimensions: legal basis, institutional arrangement, certification mechanism, industrial support, and market orientation. A qualitative comparative-policy design was used. The analysis drew on legislation, official certification manuals, strategic policy documents, government information, and peer-reviewed literature, which were coded thematically and compared across the five dimensions. The comparison shows that Malaysia has developed a relatively consolidated certification and industrial-promotion model centered on JAKIM and supported by the Halal Industry Master Plan 2030, with strong emphasis on international reputation and market access. Indonesia has moved toward a state-led mandatory assurance system under BPJPH, supported by regulatory restructuring and facilitation mechanisms for micro and small enterprises. The two models therefore differ less in the objective of halal assurance than in the way regulatory authority, industrial policy, and business inclusion are organized. Strengthening cross-border recognition, digital traceability, institutional coordination, and proportionate support for small enterprises would improve the credibility and competitiveness of both systems.
IMPACT STATEMENT
This comparative analysis shows that halal certification operates differently when embedded in distinct governance architectures. Malaysia combines certification credibility with industrial promotion and international market positioning, whereas Indonesia combines mandatory product assurance with large-scale domestic compliance and inclusion challenges. The comparison identifies practical priorities for both systems: clearer institutional coordination, proportionate support for micro and small enterprises, interoperable digital traceability, supply-chain assurance, and reciprocal recognition. These findings can support regulators, certification bodies, and food-industry stakeholders seeking to strengthen consumer protection while maintaining business accessibility and international competitiveness.
References
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nur Ain Sofiyah Binti Mohamed, Arroyan Na’im, Robert Edy Sudarwan

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.