Veremark

The future of work is being built on a new foundation: scalable trust. The conversation has shifted beyond simply finding talent. It’s now about creating and maintaining confidence across the entire employee lifecycle. Technology's highest purpose is to enable this, empowering HR to move from process-driven tasks to people-focused strategy. We’re excited to be at the forefront of this shift and will be discussing these ideas at HRx 📅April 15, 2026 📍Hilton, Manila If you’re attending, let’s connect. #hrX #FutureOfWork #HRInnovation #Manila

Nearly half the people who reported workplace misconduct in the last global ethics survey said they experienced retaliation afterwards. That's from a study covering 42 countries and more than 70,000 employees. Meanwhile, 43% of US workers say they fear speaking up would put their job at risk. A third doubt anything would change even if they did. People don't decide to raise a concern because a reporting channel exists. They decide based on what they think will happen to them after they use it. That calculation is shaped by every report that went nowhere, every investigation that dragged on without a visible outcome, and every colleague who raised a concern and was quietly sidelined. Governments are paying attention. This month, the US Treasury proposed a new programme to financially reward people who report misconduct externally. The EU's whistleblower directive is expanding scope again in August. The message is clear: if your internal process doesn't feel safe, regulators are building the alternative. Our latest newsletter looks at why speaking up is a trust decision, and what the data says about how most organisations are handling it.

The conversation around workforce trust is changing. For years, the focus often sat on screening at the point of hire. That still matters, though it is only one part of a much bigger picture. Trust is also shaped by what happens during probation, when access changes, when concerns are raised, and when patterns begin to emerge over time. This is why trust now sits across governance, culture, operations, and response. It depends on whether organisations can spot signals early, act on them consistently, and show what was done next. For leadership teams, that makes trust a design question as much as a people question. Download the report here: https://hubs.la/Q046Szpp0

If someone asked you today to explain how your last hire was made, step by step, could you answer from your records? Which criteria did the system apply? Were candidates filtered out before a human saw them? On what basis? Who was accountable for the final decision? Most organisations can't answer those questions. And that's where the exposure sits, not in the bad hire, but in the reasonable hire you can't prove was reasonable. We wrote about what defensibility actually looks like when AI is embedded in your hiring process. 🔗 https://hubs.ly/Q048ccCL0 #Hiring #AI #Governance #TalentAcquisition #BackgroundScreening

Anonymous reporting is common for a reason. People worry about exposure and retaliation, so they hold back, or they share only what feels safe. The problem is that anonymous reports often arrive with gaps. Dates are unclear. Context is missing. Evidence sits elsewhere. Without a safe way to follow up, organisations either make assumptions or stop early. Two-way communication changes what happens next. You can ask clarifying questions while the reporter stays anonymous, which improves case quality and makes follow-through more realistic. A useful question to ask is simple. If an anonymous report landed tomorrow, could you learn more while protecting the person, and could you show what you did next. Read more: https://hubs.la/Q046FV500

Zero complaints doesn't mean zero problems. It usually means your people have done the maths and decided that reporting carries more risk than staying quiet. When that's the calculation, you don't have a culture problem. You have a systems problem. Screening catches risk at the door. Whistleblowing catches it after the fact. But between those two checkpoints, most organisations are flying blind. No continuous verification, no shared disclosure infrastructure, no way to prove duty of care when it matters. The organisations getting this right aren't adding more policies. They're connecting screening and reporting into a single integrity system so that trust stays visible across the entire employment lifecycle. That's the shift. From "hire once, trust forever" to trust as something you maintain, measure and defend. https://hubs.la/Q049nZTz0

As organisations put more emphasis on workforce trust, the harder question is often how accountability is experienced in practice. Controls can be well-intended and still lose credibility when they are poorly explained, applied too broadly, or felt as something imposed from a distance. That is why the design of trust systems matters as much as the controls themselves. Transparency, proportionality, credibility, and fairness all shape whether accountability feels workable and legitimate to the people living with it. A useful test for leaders is whether these systems make sense to employees, not only to the people designing them. Read more here: https://hubs.la/Q046jHVw0

Most underpayment issues don't start big. They become big. A single complaint can quickly escalate — impacting more employees, stretching across years, and increasing in complexity. What you do in the first 90 days determines everything. Join Marcus Zeltzer, Grace Brunton-Makeham and David Morgan as they break down how to: → Understand scope early → Identify root causes fast → Keep remediation on track as the picture evolves 📅 23 April | 11:00am–12:00pm AEDT 🔗 Register here: https://hubs.la/Q048_qvX0

Ask most hiring teams whether they take screening seriously and they'll point to the policy. Ask a hiring manager how long their last reference check took and you'll get a very different answer. Two weeks chasing a previous employer. No visibility on progress. Candidates emailing to ask what's happening. The hiring manager quietly wondering whether to skip it and make the offer anyway. 42% of candidates withdraw from hiring processes because they take too long. 31% of employers say they've lost people specifically because screening was slow. The process meant to build confidence is actively eroding it. Today, we look at why the screening experience is a trust experience, and why the operational details most companies overlook are the ones candidates remember. Subscribe to get future editions in your feed 👉https://lnkd.in/gZV2WMSN

39% of candidates used AI in their last application. Over half used it to write their CV. The document in front of you looks like effort. It reads like tailoring. It might even feel like a strong cultural fit — because the language mirrors your own job description. But it was generated in under a minute. AI hasn't broken hiring. But it has made the old proxies for trust unreliable. CVs, cover letters, writing samples, references — all producible at scale, all increasingly hard to distinguish from the real thing. So if the documents can't tell you who someone really is, what can? Our latest piece explores how authenticity is becoming the sharpest trust problem in hiring, and what a stronger assessment model looks like when the signals you've relied on stop working. 🔗 https://hubs.la/Q048c27P0 #Hiring #AI #TalentAcquisition #BackgroundScreening #WorkforceTrust