Artificial intelligence is making it faster to search resumes and screen job applicants, but recruitment firms face a harder question: whether employers will keep paying the same fees for work that software can increasingly do. Agency executives disagree over whether the savings will lead to lower prices or allow recruiters to charge for a different kind of service, centered on judgment, specialist knowledge and relationships.
The stakes reach beyond the agencies themselves. Employers often pay recruitment firms a percentage of a successful candidate’s first-year salary. As automated tools take over more of the early search process, the argument over fees is becoming an argument over what a recruiter actually contributes to a hire.
David Berwick, owner of Stockport, England-based Adria Solutions, said businesses can already automate much of the work involved in finding resumes and passing them to employers. Agencies that do little more than that will find their charges increasingly difficult to justify, he said in an industry interview.
There is evidence of time savings, though not proof that every agency will benefit equally. Recruitment-software provider Bullhorn’s UK survey found that 37% of recruiters said AI had made screening 26% to 50% faster. Nearly 300 recruitment professionals in the UK and Ireland took part in the online survey, conducted in November and December 2025 for its 2026 report.
Bullhorn also found a link between AI use and revenue growth. That is an association in survey responses, not a finding that software alone caused higher sales. The company sells recruitment technology, giving it a commercial interest in the market it is measuring.
Adecco offers one example of how the work is changing. The staffing group said it had six AI recruitment agents operating in the UK and France in February, with the UK tools saving about 15% of time spent on recruitment processes. Niki Turner-Harding, its senior vice president for the UK and Ireland, said the agents support recruiters rather than make hiring decisions. Candidates can ask to speak to a person.
Matt Collingwood, managing director of Birmingham-based VIQU Group, argues that automation can free staff to build relationships and provide expertise. He said VIQU’s turnover had risen 47% over the previous 18 months, partly because of that approach. That growth figure is his account of the company’s performance, not an industry-wide result.
Collingwood expects fees to hold or even rise where agencies demonstrate greater value. His broader forecast is much harsher: he predicted that only about a third of today’s recruitment agencies may survive the next five years. That is his prediction, not a measured outcome or a settled industry projection.
James Wright, founder of London executive-hiring firm Velocity Leadership, said AI lets him handle work that once required a five-person team. Discussing large global executive-search firms and their layers of analysts, researchers, consultants and partners, he predicted that 60% to 70% could lose their jobs. Those potential cuts are Wright’s estimate, not announced layoffs.
Others see pricing pressure rather than a straightforward opportunity to preserve margins. Paddy Lambros, founder and CEO of AI recruitment platform Dex, argues that high fees reflect an inefficient process. He also warned that automated applications can flood employers with resumes, leaving technology to create congestion as well as remove it.
Chris Stirling, managing director of specialist recruiter Stirling Q&R, draws the line at assessment. Software can quickly locate profiles containing technical terms, he said, but judging whether a candidate has actually built a quality system rather than simply maintained one requires deeper evaluation. Faster screening may change the recruitment bill; the unresolved issue is how much employers will pay for the judgment that remains.
JBizNews Desk | London
© JBizNews.com. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution is strictly prohibited.
