Embellished applications are not a fringe phenomenon but widespread practice: in a 2023 survey by the CV-builder provider CVapp.de, 58.5% of respondents admitted to having “polished” their application documents. At the same time, bad hires are among the most expensive single decisions in HR — the costs comprise repeated recruiting, onboarding, lost productivity and separation expenses. Verifying application information before hiring is therefore not a vote of no confidence, but a sober business case.
What the numbers say — and how robust they are
For context: the survey cited comes from a provider of CV templates and is based on self-reporting — it is thus a vendor survey, not a scientific primary study. As an order of magnitude, the finding is nonetheless meaningful, especially as it matches experience from screening practice: a relevant share of applications contains information that does not withstand verification. Anyone citing figures of this kind should always name the source — precisely the transparency you are right to expect from a screening provider as well.
Where people lie: the typical categories
Among respondents who admitted to manipulation, the CVapp.de survey shows the claims concentrated in a few fields:
- Competencies and skills (78.6% of those concerned) — from language proficiency to software knowledge,
- Salary information (73.9%) — inflated previous salaries as a negotiating lever,
- Job titles (57.9%) — upgraded titles and areas of responsibility.
Strikingly, exactly these categories are the hardest to verify in an interview — and the easiest in a structured check. Employment periods, titles and degrees can be verified against primary sources; a conversation cannot deliver that. Which questions you are even permitted to ask is covered in the article The employer’s right to ask vs. the ‘right to lie’.
What a bad hire really costs
No single blanket figure can seriously be given — the costs depend on position, salary and tenure. What can be clearly named, however, are the cost blocks incurred with every bad hire:
- Direct replacement costs: renewed recruiting, job advertisements, possibly headhunters, interviews, onboarding.
- Productivity gap: the time during which the position is vacant or understaffed — the largest block for leadership and specialist roles.
- Knock-on costs in the environment: tied-up management time, extra strain on the team, and in client-facing roles also reputational and relationship damage.
- Separation costs: garden leave, severance, litigation costs in the event of a dispute.
In total, these blocks quickly reach an order of magnitude that exceeds the cost of structured pre-hire verification many times over — particularly for positions with financial responsibility or system access. Added to this is a factor that appears in no cost calculation: anyone hired on the basis of a false statement has already deceived at the very first step of the working relationship. For roles built on trust and control responsibility — compliance, finance, IT administration — this signal weighs heavier than the false statement itself.
The legal framework — briefly put in context
Anyone who deceives about lawfully asked, job-related matters — for instance with a fabricated degree — risks rescission of the employment contract for fraudulent misrepresentation (§ 123 BGB, German Civil Code); in serious cases of intentional harm, damages under § 826 BGB may come into consideration. Both, however, are instruments for when the damage has occurred — they take effect once the wrong decision has already been made and the harm has materialised. Economically, prevention is always superior to rescission. What the criminal record certificate does and does not deliver here is shown in the article Police clearance certificate vs. background check.
Recommended course of action: verification as the standard, not the exception
Make the verification of application information a defined process step rather than a gut decision. First: determine, on a risk basis, which positions receive which depth of screening — not every role needs the same check. Second: for relevant positions, verify at minimum degrees, employment periods and career stations against documented sources. Third: communicate the check transparently — as a standard for everyone, not as suspicion against individuals. Indicium delivers audit-proof reports for this, with dated sources and human final review (Art. 22 GDPR), from €79 per report — details under pricing or directly in a demo.
This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice.