- 82% of employers who monitor their automated screening found outcomes differed by ethnicity, while 28% of employers don’t monitor at all
- Nearly two-thirds of hiring decision-makers failed to identify each of candidates’ existing legal rights over automated decisions, almost a third (32%) believe bias audits are already legally required – they currently are not
- 61% of employers say they disclose automated screening but only 15% of candidates say they have ever been told
- Half (51%) say their screening provider uses candidates’ data to train its AI models, accountability for fairness sits with IT (38%) more often than HR (31%), and only 4% use an external auditor
- 44% of candidates say they would be less likely to apply to a company using automated screening with no human oversight, making fair screening an employer brand challenge
- People Like Us calls on the UK Government to ensure screening transparency is included in the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill
UK employers have automated their hiring faster than they can govern it, according to new research released today by People Like Us and Censuswide. A survey of 500 UK hiring decision-makers across HR, talent acquisition and procurement paints a picture of recruitment transformed by automation in response to surging application volumes, with oversight, transparency and legal literacy unable to keep pace.
Application volumes have risen 39% on average over two years, and 69% of employers have increased their use of automated or AI-assisted screening in response. Two-thirds of entry-level applications now receive an automated first sift or a fully automated process to interview stage, meaning those entering the workforce are most exposed to decisions without a human review. Meanwhile, 76% of hiring decision makers describe automated tools as ‘inherently objective because they make decisions based on data’, despite 82% who monitor their outcomes saying they find differences by ethnicity.
This new research, released alongside a parallel survey of 2,000 UK jobseekers, launches Reject The Rejections, a national campaign for transparency and accountability in employer screening. These findings build on a UCL study in 2025 analysing over 100,000 live graduate job applications which reveal ethnic minority candidates are well represented in application pools for graduate roles but are disproportionately rejected at the initial screening and online testing stage of recruitment despite having similar qualifications.
Key findings:
Flying blind
28% of employers using automated screening don’t monitor whether outcomes differ by ethnicity or other protected characteristics. Of those who do, 82% found differences and 36% described them as meaningful. 30% of decision-makers don’t know, or aren’t sure how their own screening tool scores candidates.
An arms race nobody is winning
Over two-thirds of jobseekers (66%) have tried to ‘game’ recruitment software, 27% have used AI tools like ChatGPT to rewrite their CV to beat AI screening, and 13% have hidden keywords in white text. The result is a vicious cycle as AI-assisted applications inflate volumes, employers are more reliant on automations and hiring becomes a contest between machines leaving real people caught in the middle. 31% have decided not to apply for a job they believed they were qualified for, because they suspected AI would screen them out anyway, rising to 39% of ethnic minority candidates.
A legal literacy problem
Only around 35% of hiring decision-makers could identify each of the rights candidates already hold under UK Data Protection law: to challenge an automated decision, request human review, and be told the reasons. Roughly 3 in 10 instead believe in rights that do not exist, and 32% believe independent bias audits are already mandatory, no such requirement currently exists in UK law.
The disclosure gap
61% of employers say they disclose automated screening to candidates in some form yet only 17% disclose on all job adverts, 18% have no plans to disclose at all, and just 15% of candidates say an employer has ever told them an automated system was used.
The review gap
58% of employers report a formal process for candidates requesting human review but among candidates who actually requested one, only 28% received a review, and 35% of employers concede that requests are handled ad-hoc.
Data and accountability
51% say their software provider uses candidate data to train its AI models, an area the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has identified as the leading source of compliance failure. A quarter of Data Protection Impact Assessments (25%) were completed only after tools went live. Responsibility for fairness among those surveyed sits with IT teams (38%) more often than HR (31%) and only 4% use an external auditor. Six in 10 (60%) employers surveyed say they do not report any independent audit of their recruitment automation.
Systemic exposure
65% of screening tools are third-party, including 25% using a standard vendor product shared with other employers. This means a single algorithm’s flaw can replicate across an entire industry, rejecting the same candidates everywhere they apply. In parallel, 42% of jobseekers report receiving identical or near-identical rejections from different employers.
The commercial risk
44% of candidates would be less likely to apply to a company using automated screening with no human oversight. Notably, 39% of employers adopted automation to reduce unconscious bias, while the intent has been clearly positive, UCL research suggests that adverse impact during recruitment processes often remains, particularly at initial screening and online testing stages.
Ask of the Government
People Like Us calls on the Government to mandate disclosure of automated or AI-assisted screening in job adverts and identifies the upcoming Equality (Race and Disability) Bill as the vehicle: a bill establishing employer transparency on race at work is the natural home for transparency about how candidates are screened into work. The campaign further calls for mandatory independent bias audits of automated recruitment tools - a requirement New York has imposed since 2023. The public mandate is clear: 71% of jobseekers say independent audits would increase their confidence in automated recruitment, and 82% say disclosure in job adverts should be required by law.
Sheeraz Gulsher, co-founder of People Like Us commented: “Employers aren’t the villains here, most resort to automations in good faith to cope with a surging volume of applicants, and four in ten did it believing they were reducing bias. However, good faith isn’t governance - when 82% of the employers who checked found outcomes vary by ethnicity, ‘we didn’t know’ stops being a defence. The Equality (Race and Disability) Bill gives the Government the vehicle to make transparency the rule to enable fairer access to jobs for all. Automation has a clear role in managing surging application numbers - but checks and balances must keep recruitment equitable for all.”
Dr Claire Tyler, senior research fellow at UCL added: “This research highlights the importance of employers examining success rates for under-represented groups at every stage of the recruitment process to identify where the greatest barriers arise. While technology can help employers manage ever-growing application volumes and increasing competition for jobs, it is crucial to understand who might benefit or be disadvantaged by these systems. Only by measuring outcomes can employers identify where barriers may occur and invest in evidence-based approaches that help attract, assess and select the best talent.”
Tom Heys, pay transparency and AI specialist at Lewis Silkin added: “If your hiring software is rejecting ethnic minority talent simply because of their name or background, that could be discrimination. And arguing “the algo did it” won't save you in a tribunal. The law doesn't care whether the bias is human or digital. Employers who outsource decision-making to machines don't get to outsource accountability along with it."
