Do Employees Trust HR? Statistics on Trust, Fairness and Reporting

Do employees trust HR? Statistics on trust, fairness and reporting

"Whose side is HR on?" is one of the oldest questions in working life, and the honest answer is structural: HR is employed by the company. That does not mean employees are wrong to expect fairness, and it does not mean HR is untrustworthy by design. It does mean the question is worth measuring rather than arguing about. This page collects the published numbers on how much employees trust their employer and HR, how often they report problems, why they stay silent, and what the data says actually rebuilds trust. Every figure links to the source used here (the original survey where it is public, otherwise the outlet that reported it), with sample size and fieldwork dates where available.

Key numbers at a glance

• 75% of employees trust "my employer", which remains the most trusted institution in the survey despite a 3-point drop (2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, 33,000+ respondents, 28 countries)
• 53% of workers trust their company, and 63% of employers say they trust their employees (Gartner, reported by HR Dive, 2023)
• One in four employees who witnessed harassment or misconduct did not report it; 52% of them cited a lack of trust that the company would handle it appropriately (HR Acuity, 2,206 U.S. employees, April 2024)
• More than 70% of surveyed tech employees said they do not trust HR (Blind survey of 11,000+ users, reported by HR Dive, 2018)
• 15% of U.S. workers describe their workplace as toxic (APA Work in America 2024, Harris Poll, 2,027 employed adults)
• Just three in ten U.S. workers strongly agree that their opinions count at work (Gallup)

Trust in the employer is high; trust in the process is not

The headline figure is better than the reputation. In the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, fielded between 25 October and 16 November 2024 across more than 33,000 respondents in 28 countries, "my employer" was trusted by 75% of employees, down three points but still the most trusted institution measured, ahead of business in general, government, media and NGOs (Edelman).

Ask a narrower question and the number drops. Gartner research presented at its ReimagineHR conference in October 2023 found that only 53% of workers trust their company, while 63% of employers said they trust their employees, a gap that runs in both directions (HR Dive). The same research noted that HR leaders were being asked to do more than three years earlier and had more authority over strategic priorities, which puts the function in the middle of that trust gap whether it asked to be or not.

The sharpest numbers come from anonymous professional networks, where employees are least guarded. In a 2018 Blind survey of more than 11,000 users, over 70% of tech employees said they did not trust HR, only 26% said they did, 42% said they would not feel comfortable reporting sexual harassment to HR, and 41% had witnessed or experienced retaliation (HR Dive). The sample is self-selected and skewed to large tech companies, so the percentages should not be generalised to every workplace, but the pattern of distrust concentrating around reporting and retaliation repeats in more rigorous surveys.

What silence costs: the reporting gap

HR Acuity's 2024 study, fielded in April 2024 among 2,206 U.S. employees across industries and company sizes, put numbers on the moment trust is tested. Among employees who witnessed harassment or misconduct, one in four did not report it. Their reasons were a lack of trust that the company would handle it appropriately (52%), a belief that the matter would not be taken seriously (44%) and fear of retaliation or reputation damage (43%). When employees had personally experienced misconduct, the reporting rate rose to 85%, which means the people most likely to stay silent are witnesses, exactly the people an investigation needs (HR Acuity).

The same study shows what a handled case is worth. Employees whose harassment or misconduct report was investigated and resolved were 51% likely to recommend their employer, compared with 36% when it was not. Employees whose leave of absence was handled well were 48% likely to recommend the employer, versus 36% when it was handled poorly. And during layoffs and restructuring, only 23% of respondents said the experience increased their trust in their employer (HR Acuity press release). Trust is not built in the engagement survey; it is built or lost in these four or five moments a year.

Psychological safety is the mechanism

The reason reporting rates track trust is psychological safety, which the American Psychological Association defines, citing Amy Edmondson, as feeling comfortable sharing concerns and mistakes without fear of embarrassment or retribution. APA's Work in America 2024 survey, conducted by The Harris Poll between 25 March and 3 April 2024 among 2,027 employed U.S. adults, split workers into higher and lower psychological safety at the median. The two halves live in different workplaces:

• Feeling tense or stressed out in a typical workday: 27% of workers with higher psychological safety versus 61% with lower
• Intending to look for a new job within a year: 19% versus 41%
• Saying their employer offers opportunities to receive feedback: 57% versus 37%
• Describing the company as one that understands when employees need flexibility: 80% versus 44%
• 15% of all workers described their workplace as toxic

Source: APA, Work in America 2024: Psychological Safety in the Changing Workplace.

Gallup's engagement data adds the scale of the opportunity. Only three in ten U.S. workers strongly agree that their opinions count at work. Gallup estimates that moving that ratio to six in ten could be associated with 27% lower turnover, 40% fewer safety incidents and 12% higher productivity (Gallup).

Why the trust gap exists

Three practical reasons often widen the gap, and only one of them is fully within HR's control.

The role is genuinely dual. HR's legal duty runs to the organisation. Protecting the organisation often means protecting individual employees, because unfair dismissals, ignored harassment and inconsistent discipline are exactly the things that produce lawsuits and resignations. But an employee who hears "I have to escalate this" after a conversation they assumed was private learns the wrong lesson about the whole department.

Confidentiality is limited and rarely explained. Most HR teams cannot promise confidentiality for a harassment report, because they have a duty to investigate. What they can promise is a need-to-know process, protection from retaliation and a named person who will close the loop. When those promises are not made explicitly, employees assume the worst: in the HR Acuity study, 52% of non-reporters cited a lack of trust that the company would handle the matter appropriately.

Good outcomes are invisible. A mediated dispute, a manager quietly corrected, a dismissal prevented because HR pushed back: none of these are visible to the wider workforce. Bad outcomes travel. The result is a reputation built almost entirely from the cases HR lost.

What actually rebuilds trust

1. Publish the reporting process, including its limits. Say who sees a report, what "confidential" means in practice, how long an investigation takes and how the reporter is told the outcome. The HR Acuity data shows resolution, not secrecy, is what moves recommendation scores.
2. Close the loop every time. An investigation that ends without telling the reporter anything is experienced as no investigation at all. A short written note that the matter was reviewed and action was taken (even when details cannot be shared) is the difference between the 51% and 36% figures above.
3. Treat retaliation as the most serious offence. Fear of retaliation was cited by 43% of non-reporters. A single visible case of a reporter being protected does more for trust than a year of posters.
4. Handle the predictable moments deliberately. Leave, layoffs, performance reviews and the first 90 days are where trust is decided. Each deserves a written playbook, a named owner and a follow-up conversation.
5. Measure psychological safety, not just engagement. Add two or three direct items to the pulse survey: "I can raise a concern without it being held against me", "Mistakes here are treated as learning", "My manager acts on feedback". Track them by team, because the median hides the 15% in toxic environments.
6. Start before day one. Candidates form their view of HR during hiring. Clear timelines, honest job descriptions and a rejection that arrives on time are the first evidence that the company keeps its word. 100Hires supports that with automated status updates to candidates and structured feedback from interviewers.

For related guidance, see our pages on mental health at work, employee retention strategy and why onboarding matters.

How to read these numbers

Trust surveys are sensitive to who is asked and how. Edelman's 75% comes from a broad, multi-country sample answering a general question about their employer. Blind's 70% distrust figure comes from a self-selected, anonymous tech audience answering a pointed question about HR. Both are real; they measure different things. The most useful figures for an HR team are the ones tied to specific moments (reporting, leave, layoffs, feedback) because those are the moments the team can change. Where a source's methodology is not public, this page says so and links to the reporting outlet rather than restating the number as fact.

Sources

• Edelman, 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer press release (PR Newswire, January 2025)
• HR Dive, HR pros saddled with more work and more power, Gartner says (October 2023)
• HR Acuity, Rethinking Employee Experience: Four Critical Overlooked Moments (PR Newswire, 2024) and the HR Acuity press release
• HR Dive, Survey: 70% of tech employees don't trust HR (August 2018, Blind)
• American Psychological Association, Work in America 2024: Psychological Safety in the Changing Workplace (The Harris Poll, 2024)
• Gallup, How to Create a Culture of Psychological Safety