Supporting Diverse Entrepreneurs

The venture-capital world has a serial-entrepreneur problem, and it is gendered. New National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) research comparing male and female co-founders of the same startups reveals disparities that cannot be explained by founder quality or ambition: → Women make up only 4% of founders with 3+ startups (vs 13.3% of all VC-backed founders) → After a startup failure women are 22.5% less likely to secure venture-capital backing for their next venture → Female serial entrepreneurs raise 53.3% less capital after failures and 24.6% less after successes → Men receive larger deals for founding experience regardless of outcomes. Women are penalized for failures and barely rewarded for successes → When an unrelated women-founded startup fails, it hurts funding prospects for all female founders. However, successes do not create positive spillovers.

Big News - Sharing A Personal Milestone Announcing The Publication of Our New White Paper "Ushering into the New Era of Financial Inclusion: Enabling Women and Women-Led Organisations." Collaborating with my co-authors, Ayush Tripathi and Soham Jagtap , from The Dialogue, on our shared goal and unwavering commitment to championing the financial empowerment of women has led to this latest research. This project means a lot to me, and I feel incredibly proud of what we've achieved. Together, we've delved deep into the challenges and opportunities that define the financial landscape for women in our country. Current State of Financial Inclusion for Women in India >In India, women make up only about 32.8% of the labour workforce, which is considerably lower than the global average of 47%. >Despite constituting nearly half of the population, women contribute significantly less to India’s GDP, accounting for just 17% compared to the global average of 37% > Only 10% of women in India are borrowers compared to 15% in men >  Women receive credit equal to just 27% of their deposits, whereas men receive 52%. > Despite 51% of women being aware of microcredit, only 11% have availed such loans. Here are three powerful insights from our research that we believe can spark real change: 1/ Harnessing Digital Financial Infrastructure: By leveraging platforms like UPI and the JAM Trinity, we can open up financial access for women, especially in rural areas. Tailoring these models to be more gender-inclusive is key to bridging the financial inclusion gap. 2/ Empowering Through Community: Strengthening Self-Help Groups (SHGs) and utilizing on-ground networks like Bank Sakhis can empower women at the grassroots level. These networks provide essential financial literacy and access to credit, making a tangible difference in their lives. 3/ Innovative Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): Collaborations between the government and private sector can drive innovative financial solutions. From digital banking ecosystems to customized credit products, these partnerships can support and uplift women entrepreneurs. However, Our work is not done yet. Together, let's champion initiatives that empower women, break down barriers, and pave the way for a more equitable - There IS a business case for empowering women financially. Here are some key stats that highlight this immense potential- > Accelerating women's entrepreneurship in India could generate over 30 million women-owned enterprises, creating 150-170 million jobs. > Increased adoption of digital financial services could raise India’s GDP per capita by 3 to 4 percentage points. > Women-led startups deliver a 35% higher ROI compared to those led by men. This journey has been deeply personal. And, I am honored to have worked alongside Ayush and Soham, Thank you for the collaboration. I look forward to the positive impact our work will have on promoting financial empowerment for women.

It's easy to think that funding discrimination only impacts women or people of color. It doesn't, and here's why 👇 Founders often build companies to solve problems they've personally experienced. When women and people of color don't get funded, the problems faced by these groups don't get solved. This is evident in every industry from healthcare to education and beyond. Funding discrimination also prevents women and people of color from equally participating in the innovation of products/services that affect everyone. From the racist and sexist bias in AI to the development of everyday products within beauty, healthcare, transportation and beyond. Again, this is very well proven by research. Therefore, we should all care about the fact that female founders receive less than 2% of funding while Black founders receive less than 0,5% of funding (men and women combined!). It's not good enough - and the solution is not that hard. Right now, ~90% VC Partners are (mainly white) men. We've said it before, and last night we said it again on national TV: 50% of the population is not qualified to make decisions about 100% of the population. Camilla Cloëtta Falkenberg l Emma Due Bitz l Female Invest

📉 266,000 Black women lost their jobs last month. Let that sink in. Not over the past year. Not during a recession. In just one month. And yet—where’s the media coverage? Where’s the national conversation? Where’s the outrage? Black women are the most educated demographic in America. We’re earning degrees, starting businesses, leading households, mentoring others, and innovating in every industry. But we’re also the first to be let go, the last to be promoted, and the most underpaid. This isn’t just a data point. It’s a crisis. And the silence around it is loud. We keep hearing about “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “equity”—but what happens when Black women are quietly pushed out of the workforce without support, without explanation, and without solutions? Here’s what needs to happen now: 🔹 Tell the truth about what's happening 🔹 Fund Black women founders 🔹 Hire, sponsor, and pay Black women equitably 🔹 Hold companies accountable—not just for who they hire, but who they *keep* This isn’t about blame. It’s about visibility, justice, and change. If you're in leadership, HR, or policy—you have the power to interrupt this trend. The question is: Will you? #BlackWomenAtWork #PayEquity #BlackWomenLead #Layoffs #WorkforceEquity #FutureOfWork #LeadershipMatters #InclusionIsNotRetention #DEI #WageGap #BlackWomenDeserveBetter

Money, trees, and trust Three Indigenous communities in Peru have spent a year receiving a guaranteed income, and the results are intriguing, reports Sonam Lama Hyolmo. The initiative, among the world’s first directed at Indigenous communities, provides direct cash transfers with no conditions attached. An internal assessment suggests that it is helping to curb destructive forest activities. The 2-year pilot, launched in Nov 2023 by Cool Earth, provides $69/mo to all 188 adults in 3 Indigenous Asháninka & Yánesha communities in Junín, Peru. With these funds, the recipients no longer rely on illegal logging or renting their lands for agriculture. Instead, they have enough for food, medical care & education. “By having less economic stress and food insecurity, the income allows local people, especially women, to lead conservation efforts & have more decision-making capacity,” said ONAMIAP's Ketty Marcelo. Deforestation in the Amazon is often driven by economic necessity, yet conditional conservation payments have had limited success. “Market-based conditional conservation instruments often don’t achieve their goals at all,” argued Bram Büscher, who proposed the idea of a conservation basic income in 2020. The alternative, he says, is to let people decide how to use the money themselves. Whether such an approach works remains uncertain. The latest assessment focused on qualitative impacts rather than forest cover data. An evaluation in 2025, developed with community leaders, will attempt to measure the scheme’s effect on conservation. Not everyone is convinced. Some researchers warn that such schemes may create dependency on cash economies or attract outsiders seeking a free payout. Studies of similar projects elsewhere have found mixed results. In Sierra Leone and Mexico, for instance, deforestation initially rose, as communities used their new income to buy tools for land clearance or migrated to untouched areas. Others note that subsistence is just one driver of deforestation; illegal logging, infrastructure projects & commodity markets all play a role. Despite the uncertainties, the pilot has already reshaped local economies. Women have launched small businesses in weaving & jewelry, and some are reviving traditional agricultural practices. Nurseries have been set up to restore lost plant species, from medicinal huayruro trees to fruit-bearing anonilla. “While it is true that the money is temporary, we try to see it as seed capital that allows us to build initiatives that will help us in the future,” said one Asháninka leader. Beyond this pilot, conservationists continue to debate whether unconditional payments are a viable tool for forest protection. Some argue that the best approach is not cash transfers but ensuring that Indigenous communities have reliable access to education, healthcare & infrastructure, allowing them to manage their forests on their own terms. In Peru, 3 communities are putting this theory to the test.

Less than 2% of venture capital goes to women. Two percent. And if you’re a woman of colour, the number gets even smaller. I’ve seen it firsthand. When I started fundraising for indē wild, I walked into rooms where no one looked like me. Where I was questioned more, doubted more, and had to prove myself in ways my male counterparts didn’t. I came prepared with numbers, a solid business, a brand that already had a community behind it, and still, the skepticism was there. And yet, research proves that when women-led businesses get funded, they don’t just succeed. They outperform. According to Boston Consulting Group (BCG), women-founded companies generate more than twice as much revenue per dollar invested as those led by men. Forbes research shows that startups backed by First Round Capital performed 63% better when they had a female founder. Women-led businesses have also proven to be more resilient during economic downturns and foster higher employee engagement. Women aren’t lacking ideas or drive or results. We’re lacking access. That’s the part that needs to change. Funding shouldn’t be about who looks the part or who fits a certain mold, it should be about vision, strategy, and impact. Women don’t need more confidence. We need capital. And it’s time for investors to realize that betting on women isn’t just the right thing to do…it’s the smart thing to do. If you've been through this, I see you. If you're in a position to change this, I hope you do. #womeninbusiness #vc

📢 For the past 18 months I have been serving on a Government Taskforce - looking at how we can supercharge Women-led *High Growth* Businesses (inc. a few trips to Number 10 Downing Street)... 📈 This builds on much of the great work already started by The Rose Review & Rose Review Board which looks at *all* women led businesses, and the valuable data collection led by the British Business Bank, British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association (BVCA), Diversity VC Level 20 and The Treasury with the Investing in Women Code. This Taskforce was specific to *High Growth* Women-Led Businesses - and was led by one - the indomitable Anne Boden. Anne founded Starling Bank in 2014 and has since scaled it to 3.6m customers, £353m in revenue last year and £195m in profit.* She truly embodies the potential of High-Growth Women-Led Businesses and we need 10,000x more Starlings in order to power our economy forward. Being on this Taskforce was not without its challenges as the topics we're tackling are so vast and complex. I wish we had the time and resources to do much more. However - today we launch our (92 page!) final report, including recommendations on how to break down barriers and support the economy. The key recommendations are: Recommendation 1: Investors should better monitor the proportion of funding they invest in female founded businesses. Recommendation 2: Firms should set their own voluntary targets for the number of women in senior investment professional roles and report against them on their websites. Recommendation 3: Increase signatories to the Investing in Women Code, particularly for private debt funds and Limited Partners, to boost investment in women-led enterprises. Recommendation 4: Drive inclusive behaviour in the investment ecosystem. The FCA should reduce the threshold for companies below 251+ employees to incorporate venture capital firms to drive greater diversity in the companies and, thus, their decision making. Recommendation 5: Roll out Female Founder Growth Boards across England. Recommendation 6: Inspire girls and women to become high-growth entrepreneurs. Recommendation 7: Improve data collection on the number of female founders. Thanks to my fellow Taskforcers ●     The Chair, Anne Boden MBE, founder of Starling Bank ●     June Angelides MBE: Investment Manager, Samos, and CEO and Founder, Mums in Tech ●     Judith Hartley: former CEO of British Patient Capital and British Business Investments, British Business Bank ●     Zandra Moore: CEO and Co-founder, Panintelligence ●     Deepali Nangia, Partner, Speedinvest and Co-founder Alma Angels ●     Jan Putnis: Partner, Slaughter and May ●     Angela Scott: Founder, TC BioPharm Ltd ●     Helen Steers: Partner, Pantheon ●     Sam Smith: Founder and former CEO at finnCap Cavendish Group Plc I couldn't have been part of this Taskforce without support from Matt Penneycard the team at Ada Ventures. 🙏 *Figures at at March 23. Link below.

Flo Health is the world's first femtech unicorn (yay) but it's also founded and funded by men (hmm) It's great that women's health is gaining more recognition, given the vast inequality in funding, research, and focus... BUT It also exposes a huge problem with the startup ecosystem. → Just 2% of global VC funding goes to women (WEF) → Women's presence on pitches is *neutral at best* and becomes negative when women don't embody typically female traits (Harvard) → Investors prefer pitches presented by men - when presented with two identical pitches, 68% funded the startup pitched by a man and 31% funded the exact same startup pitched by a woman (Harvard) → 83% of investment committees have no female members (British Business Bank) Women are discriminated against at all stages of the investment process. → Women are asked more negative questions around risk and worst-case scenarios, whereas men are asked about opportunity and opportunity (Harvard) → Women have to fight against preconceptions, we are judged more frequently, and held to higher standards (Yale) Ultimately, people with the most privilege raise the most money, and I count myself in that bucket as I am a white, privately educated female. → Just 0.5% of funding goes to black founders (WEF) → 79% of VC Seed funding for diverse founders (which is a tiny amount) goes to white women (BBG Ventures) There is SO much inequality in the startup world, and it's talked about but never taken seriously. Instead, female founders are assumed to be running businesses that aren't VC-backable, or that there just aren't enough of us. This is an uncomfortable topic, but the only way we can improve this system is to educate people about the huge inequality that exists in a sector awash with bonkers amounts of capital. Flexa #Startups #Fundraising #Inequality

Women-owned startups are a better bet Despite receiving less funding, women-owned startups outperform male-owned startups, generating higher revenue and a better return on investment 🙌 This highlights the need to address funding biases and invest in women-led ventures. Some findings from the Boston Consulting Group research 👇 1) Women-owned startups receive significantly less funding than male-owned startups, with an average disparity of over $1 million. 2) Despite receiving less funding, women-owned startups generate higher revenue than male-owned startups, with more than twice the revenue per dollar invested. 3) Startups founded and co-founded by women generate 78 cents for every dollar of funding, while male-founded startups generate just 31 cents. 4) Women founders are more likely to be challenged on their technical knowledge and are less likely to push back against criticism during pitches compared to men. 5) Male founders tend to make bolder projections in their pitches, while women are generally more conservative. 6) Some male investors have limited familiarity with products and services marketed towards women, which can lead to a lack of understanding for women-led businesses in those areas. I remember someone asked at a conference - "Is this because so few women get funded that it's only the very best businesses that make it through? 🤔Which is also an interesting question. Anyway, lots of work to be done. It all starts with having conversations around data like this. What do you think - let me know in the comments 👇 And share the names of anyone doing work in this area (I'd love to connect) ♻️ Repost if you found this interesting ➕ Follow Emmie Faust for more on entrepreneurship and growth PS With my statistics hat on I wanted to dive deeper into the data. According to the BCG article "the findings are statistically significant, and we ruled out factors that could have affected investment amounts, such as the education levels of the entrepreneurs and the quality of their pitches"

𝟭 𝗶𝗻 𝟰 𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻’𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱. 𝟭 𝗶𝗻 𝟭𝟬 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻. Together with Laura Koch and Elisabeth Berger (JKU - Institute for Entrepreneurship), I surveyed 361 international VCs using a randomized response technique to bypass social desirability bias. The results aren't unconscious bias. The results are open discrimination. And it’s personal. Some of the strongest startups I’ve seen at the University of Hohenheim were women-led, such as Holiroots or Viva la Faba. What a waste of potential. We knew gender bias existed in venture capital. Now we know how much — and where. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘄? One recommendation from our findings that’s both practical and powerful: 👉 Increase the share of women in venture capital. Why it matters:  • Women VCs show significantly less bias.  • Diverse teams make better decisions.  • Mixed teams perform better. If we want fairer funding decisions, we must rethink who’s making them. 𝗟𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝗶𝗳 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗲 “𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.” 𝗟𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁. The paper is open access in Venture Capital—An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance. Feel free to share it or use it in teaching, workshops, or policy work. 📄 https://lnkd.in/eN4jfJQx