Should More Be Done to Tackle ‘Ghost Jobs’, Vacancies That Don’t Really Exist

Jobseekers scrolling through online listings are increasingly encountering a frustrating phenomenon known as “ghost jobs”, vacancies that appear genuine but lead nowhere. While the term may sound light hearted, the practice has serious consequences for workers, employers and the wider labour market, prompting growing calls for tighter oversight and transparency.

Ghost jobs refer to roles advertised by employers despite there being no real intention to hire. In some cases, positions may already have been filled but remain listed online. In others, the job may never have existed at all. The issue has become widespread across major economies, particularly as recruitment has shifted almost entirely to digital platforms.

Studies suggest the scale of the problem is significant. Research by recruitment software company Greenhouse found that up to 22 percent of jobs advertised online across the United States, the UK and Germany last year were posted without any intent to hire. A separate UK focused study put the figure even higher, estimating that around 34 percent of advertised vacancies did not genuinely exist.

The issue is also visible in official labour data. Figures from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that in August there were 7.2 million job vacancies in the United States, but only 5.1 million people were actually hired. While not all of that gap can be explained by ghost jobs, experts say the discrepancy highlights inefficiencies and distortions in how vacancies are reported.

So why are companies posting jobs they do not plan to fill. One reason is talent pooling. Employers may advertise roles to collect CVs in anticipation of future needs, even if no immediate opening exists. Others use job listings to test the market, gauge salary expectations or assess the availability of certain skills without committing to recruitment.

There are also internal motivations. Some managers keep vacancies open to signal growth or to reassure existing staff that help is coming, even when budgets or approvals are not in place. In other cases, companies may leave listings live to demonstrate compliance with internal hiring policies, despite having already selected an internal or preferred candidate.

Economic uncertainty has exacerbated the issue. In volatile conditions, firms may hesitate to hire while still wanting to appear active and competitive. Posting jobs can create an impression of stability and expansion to investors, clients and competitors, even when hiring plans are on hold.

For jobseekers, the impact can be severe. Applying for roles that never materialise wastes time, energy and emotional resources. Repeated rejection or silence can undermine confidence and contribute to anxiety, particularly for those already facing a competitive labour market. Graduates and early career workers are often the most affected, spending months applying for positions that may never have been real.

Ghost jobs also distort labour market data. Vacancy figures are used by governments and central banks to assess economic health, skills shortages and wage pressure. If a large share of advertised roles are not genuine, policymakers may overestimate demand for workers and misjudge the state of the economy.

Some countries are beginning to take notice. In parts of the United States, lawmakers have proposed rules requiring employers to remove filled or inactive listings within a set timeframe. In Europe, regulators are exploring whether misleading job advertising could fall under existing consumer protection or employment laws.

Recruitment platforms are also under pressure to act. Some have introduced tools that flag stale listings or encourage employers to update vacancy status regularly. However, critics argue that platforms benefit from high volumes of listings and have limited incentive to aggressively police employers.

Business groups caution against heavy handed regulation. They argue that hiring is rarely linear and that flexibility is necessary, particularly for fast growing or project based organisations. Not every unfilled role is a ghost job, and distinguishing between genuine uncertainty and deliberate misrepresentation can be difficult.

Still, there is growing consensus that greater transparency would benefit everyone. Clearer labelling of roles as immediate, future or exploratory could help jobseekers make informed decisions. Requiring employers to confirm intent to hire before advertising could also reduce abuse.

As digital recruitment continues to dominate the job market, trust has become a central issue. When listings lose credibility, confidence in the system erodes. For workers navigating an already challenging landscape, ghost jobs represent another hidden barrier.

Whether through regulation, platform accountability or employer self discipline, pressure is building for change. Tackling ghost jobs will not solve all labour market problems, but many experts agree it would be a meaningful step toward a fairer and more transparent hiring process.