HireRight released its 2026 Global Benchmark Report on June 30, surveying 1,900+ human resource, risk, and talent acquisition professionals worldwide between February 18 and March 6, 2026, according to the company’s announcement. Most companies uncovered candidate discrepancies during background screening in the past 12 months, with employment verifications remaining the area most likely to reveal inconsistencies globally.
TL;DR: HireRight’s global survey of 1,900+ HR and TA professionals found that most organizations detected candidate discrepancies during background checks, with accuracy and quality remaining the top priority when choosing screening providers amid growing concerns around identity fraud and AI-enabled hiring risks.
The Nashville-based background screening provider reported that accuracy and quality of results remained the top priority for employers globally when selecting employment screening vendors. Enterprise-sized organizations reported the highest rates of candidate discrepancies, the survey showed.
Regional Differences in AI Adoption and Workforce Risk Priorities
Corporate values misalignment emerged as a leading workforce risk concern in EMEA and APAC regions, outranking the cost of a bad hire as a top risk organizations aim to mitigate through employment screening, according to the report.
Regional attitudes toward candidates using AI tools during the application process varied significantly. Nearly half of APAC respondents viewed candidates’ use of generative AI tools positively, while North American respondents were largely neutral or unsure about such usage. APAC organizations were also the most likely to report using AI tools to support HR functions.
“As organizations navigate rapid advances in AI, increasing workforce fraud risks, and continued hiring challenges, the findings provide valuable insight into how employers around the world are adapting their screening, hiring, and workforce management strategies,” said Euan Menzies, HireRight’s president and CEO, in the announcement.
Office-Based Workforce Expectations Rise
Organizations globally reported declining plans to hire fully remote employees in 2026 and increasing expectations for office-based or hybrid workforces, despite recruitment challenges tied to remote work expectations. The shift represents a continued movement away from pandemic-era remote work models.
Companies reported growing concerns around identity fraud and AI-enabled hiring risks, contributing to increased adoption of identity verification checks and post-hire screening programs worldwide. These verification measures represent an expansion beyond traditional pre-hire background checks.
Enterprise Organizations Report Higher Discrepancy Rates
The survey found that enterprise-sized organizations detected candidate discrepancies at higher rates than smaller companies during background screening processes. Employment verification checks—which validate a candidate’s stated work history, titles, and dates of employment—remained the most common area where employers uncovered inconsistencies across all company sizes and regions.
HireRight made the full 2026 Global Benchmark Report available for download at www.hireright.com/benchmark2026. The company provides background screening, verification, and workforce solutions globally, helping organizations with hiring decisions while ensuring compliance with evolving regulatory requirements.
The survey’s timing, conducted during February and early March 2026, captured employer perspectives during active spring hiring season planning. Organizations responding to the survey represented multiple regions including North America, Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and Asia-Pacific (APAC).
Reading Between the Lines
The discrepancy rates HireRight documented intersect directly with a familiar ATS problem: intake filtering rules that rely on self-reported candidate data. When most employers are uncovering inconsistencies during employment verification, it raises the question of whether automated screening tools are boosting or mitigating the signal-to-noise problem. If candidates are overstating titles, inflating tenure, or fabricating experience to clear keyword filters, tighter ATS rules won’t solve the root issue—they’ll simply reject different people for different reasons.
The regional split on AI tool acceptance is particularly revealing. APAC’s positive stance toward candidates using generative AI during applications suggests a pragmatic view: the tools exist, candidates will use them, and screening processes should adapt accordingly. North America’s ambivalence may reflect regulatory uncertainty—employers know discrimination liability for AI tools now sits with them regardless of vendor, as employment attorneys have warned. That legal exposure makes “neutral or unsure” a rational position until compliance frameworks catch up.
The office-versus-remote trajectory matters for recruitment automation in a practical way. Hybrid and office-based hiring reopens geographic constraints that fully-remote job postings had eliminated. Smaller talent pools mean ATS intake filters need recalibration—what worked when you could hire anywhere won’t work when you’re limited to commutable radius. The candidate experience implications are immediate: longer time-to-fill, more competition for local talent, and higher risk that overly strict filtering rules knock out the few qualified candidates within driving distance.
