EmployerReview

EmployerReview is a pending Review subtype for reviews of an Organization regarding its role as an employer, written by a current or former employee. It adds no properties of its own; the type itself is the signal.

itemReviewed should be the Organization. Use positiveNotes for "pros" and negativeNotes for "cons". Mark anonymous reviewers via an author with name "Anonymous" and a roleName like "Former employee, Engineering".

Full example of schema.org/EmployerReview json-ld markup

The markup is verified as valid with Rich Results Test from Google.

Highlight legend:Required by GoogleRecommendedOptional

schema.org/EmployerReview

<script type="application/ld+json">
{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "EmployerReview",
  "itemReviewed": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "Xoo Code", "url": "https://xoocode.com" },
  "author": { "@type": "Person", "name": "Anonymous", "roleName": "Former employee, Engineering" },
  "datePublished": "2026-03-02",
  "reviewBody": "Strong engineering culture and a genuine commitment to open schema.org contributions. Benefits package is solid.",
  "reviewRating": { "@type": "Rating", "ratingValue": 4, "bestRating": 5 },
  "positiveNotes": ["Engineering-first culture", "Remote-friendly", "Good benefits"],
  "negativeNotes": ["Slow promotion cycles", "Limited visibility into strategy"]
}
</script>

Minimal valid version

The smallest markup that still produces a valid EmployerReview entity. Use it as the floor. Reach for the advanced example above when you want search engines and AI agents to understand more about your content.

schema.org/EmployerReview (minimal)

<script type="application/ld+json">
{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "EmployerReview",
  "itemReviewed": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "Xoo Code" },
  "author": { "@type": "Person", "name": "Anonymous" },
  "reviewRating": { "@type": "Rating", "ratingValue": 4, "bestRating": 5 }
}
</script>

Google rich results this unlocks

Markup matching this example makes your page eligible for the following Google Search rich results. The primary target drives the required / recommended property classification in the advanced code block above.

No dedicated rich result (used by employer-review aggregators and AI assistants)
Google docs

Common EmployerReview mistakes

Mistakes that pass validation but silently fail to earn rich results or mislead consumers walking the graph. Avoid these and your markup will be ahead of most sites in the wild.

01
Using Review for employer reviews
Wrong
```
Review for a Glassdoor-style employee review
```
Right
```
EmployerReview so consumers know the reviewer is an employee and the target is the employer role
```
The specific subtype carries the employee-reviewing-employer semantics; plain Review is ambiguous.
02
itemReviewed as a Product for employer reviews
Wrong
```
EmployerReview with itemReviewed = a product
```
Right
```
itemReviewed must be an Organization (the employer)
```
EmployerReview is specifically about an organisation's employer role; other targets make no semantic sense.

Schema properties in this example

EmployerReview Review CreativeWork itemReviewed Organization url author Person roleName datePublished reviewBody reviewRating Rating ratingValue bestRating positiveNotes negativeNotes

About the example data

A fictional anonymous employee review of Xoo Code, the company behind the Xoo Code universe.

Comments

Loading comments...