Kuala lumpur: Fifteen per cent of candidates screened for employment had at least one discrepancy in their records, according to the National Background Screening Risk Index (NBSRI).

According to BERNAMA News Agency, the index, compiled by background screening specialist Venovox Sdn Bhd using approximately 300,000 background screening data points across 20 industries, found that discrepancies identified during screening included inaccurate employment histories, falsified qualifications, identity-related issues, financial irregularities, and reputational concerns.

Venovox chief executive officer Sharmila Gunasekaran said hiring risks had become increasingly complex as advances in artificial intelligence (AI) enabled more sophisticated forms of identity manipulation and fabricated credentials. Speaking to Bernama in an exclusive interview, Sharmila noted that many organisations still viewed recruitment as a routine human resources function, whereas every hiring decision could potentially grant access to valuable company assets, including financial systems, customer databases, intellectual property, and confidential information.

"The study also revealed that hiring risks vary significantly across industries, job functions, and seniority levels, highlighting the need for more targeted screening practices," she said. Among the study's findings, the professional and business services sector recorded one of the highest discrepancy rates, despite the common perception that highly qualified professionals generally pose lower hiring risks.

Sharmila highlighted that employment-related discrepancies remained among the most common findings in background screening exercises, including inflated job titles, inaccurate employment dates, undisclosed gaps in employment history, and exaggerated job responsibilities. She mentioned that employers were also increasingly exposed to risks arising from candidates' online behavior, financial misconduct indicators, and digital footprints, which could raise red flags during the hiring process.

In some cases, background screening exercises uncovered fake identities, falsified qualifications, undisclosed criminal histories, and individuals linked to financial misconduct or serious reputational concerns, helping organisations avoid potentially costly hiring mistakes, she said. Sharmila emphasized that organisations balancing recruitment efficiency with robust verification would be better placed to manage future workforce risks, noting that workforce risk was becoming as critical as cybersecurity.

Chartered Fellow of CIPD UK and Fellow of the Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI), Prakash Santhanam, shared a similar view, noting that hiring fraud had evolved beyond falsified resumes and exaggerated work experience. He explained that candidates could now leverage generative AI and agentic AI to produce highly refined resumes, tailor cover letters, fabricate portfolios, manipulate assessment responses, and even use deepfake technology during virtual interviews. "This raises serious concerns about AI ethics, authenticity, integrity, competency validation, and organisational risk," he said.

Prakash advised that organisations should no longer rely solely on resumes, online assessments, and structured interviews, but instead adopt a more comprehensive recruitment approach incorporating behavioural and situational interviews, work simulations, case studies, identity verification, reference checks, credential validation, and probationary assessments based on actual job performance. Rather than prohibiting AI, he suggested that employers establish clear guidelines on its acceptable use throughout the recruitment process while ensuring recruiters and hiring managers were equipped to recognise potential warning signs associated with AI-enabled fraud. "Recruitment policies, assessment methodologies, and interviewer capabilities must evolve to address AI-related risks," he added.