Fundraising Campaigns

Following USAID's funding freeze, the UK government has also announced cuts to its international ‘aid’ budget. While these cuts will impact organizations across the development and humanitarian sectors, they will hit grassroots and feminist organizations the hardest—especially those working on issues that are already overlooked and underfunded. For years, women-led, feminist, and grassroots organizations have struggled to access even the smallest amounts of funding. Now, with over $60 billion annually (or even more) in cuts in international development funding, these organizations will find it even harder to access resources. Yes, we can debate the bureaucratic power imbalances that institutions like USAID have reinforced between funders and implementing organizations and the unequal playing field. But we cannot deny that lives are at stake. And maybe this is the time we can interrogate how we can create a funding ecosystem that is actually just, equitable, and capable of addressing structural and systemic challenges. As development practitioners, a few things we need to explore: First, how do we create a balance between responding to urgent humanitarian crises and investing in long-term solutions? Important life-saving programs are in crisis, and while we need to mobilize funding for them, we also need to think about channeling funds to solutions that last. Second, I cannot emphasize enough the need to fund grassroots movements and community-led organizations. We will never be able to address structural issues if sustainable, long-term, flexible funding is not channeled to grassroots-led solutions and if the power is not shifted back to the communities. This needs to be the topmost priority for funders right now. Third, can we rethink how individual philanthropy and crowdfunding work? How can we mobilize and encourage individual donors and philanthropic organizations to move away from one-off campaigns and short-term initiatives and instead invest in long-term change? Fourth, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funding is such an untapped resource. Can corporations / private-sector build meaningful, long-term partnerships with grassroots movements instead of just funding feel-good initiatives? #USAID #feministorganizations #grassrootsorganizations #gender #fundingfreeze

Women-led teams make up nearly 14% of UK startups. But they receive just 2.4% of the £10M+ investment rounds. These stats don’t surprise me. But they still sting. The Startup Coalition’s latest report on funding for female founders is essential reading - not because it’s shocking, but because it confirms what so many of us already know, and have lived. As someone who became an entrepreneur in my 40s - while juggling motherhood, a mortgage, and a corporate career, I’ve seen the difference access to funding, networks, and belief can make. This report does something I think is vital: it goes beyond pointing out the problem, and lays out the structural barriers clearly - from investor bias and legal grey zones, to angel investment thresholds and childcare costs. What stood out to me most: The quiet toll that fundraising can take when you’re constantly questioned, underestimated, or simply overlooked. I’ve mentored many women who’ve faced this. Brilliant founders, building great businesses - but having to defend their ambition in rooms where their ideas are undervalued. Progress won’t happen by accident. It requires pressure, policy, and persistence. Let’s use this moment to push further and ensure the next generation of female founders doesn’t just survive the system, but reshapes it from the ground up.

In Africa - though it is a global problem, really -, the more you progress on the funding journey, the less female-led and female co-founded ventures are represented... 🚰 ‘This is a pipeline issue’ is not really a valid excuse to justify the chronic underrepresentation of women. After all, investors have managed to fund 700+ rounds involving a female co-founded venture since 2019 (two a week on average over the period) and allocate $2.4b to them. The issue though is that as they mature, female co-founded and female-led start-ups struggle more than others to attract funding, especially large and very large tickets: 🌱 If you consider pre-seed deals in #Africa since 2019, 28% (24% of the amount invested) involved female co-founded start-ups, including 15% (10% of the amount) with a female CEO. 🌴 Now if you look at Series B and Series C deals together, only 14% involved female co-founded ventures, who raised just 11% of the funding. And only 5% were female-led, attracting 4% of the total amount. One last start: 🤏 Overall, female co-founded ventures raise on average 1.5x times less than their exclusively-male (co-)founded counterparts. And female CEO, when they manage to get funded, raise 2.5x times less on average than their male CEO peers. To find out more, check out "Disappearing women 🫥" my latest post for our Africa: The Big Deal newsletter below 👇 --- #funding #fundingnews #fundingdata #venturefunding #venturecapital

We cannot afford to pit women’s progress against men’s needs. A dangerous narrative is spreading—that advancing women comes at the expense of men and boys. This zero-sum framing not only undermines gender equality, it weakens families, communities, and economies. As I wrote in Alliance magazine and as we at Grameen Foundation see every day, a woman’s success never stops with her. It uplifts her children, her household, and her community. When investments in women decline, the ripple effects are devastating: -A mother denied healthcare jeopardizes her child’s future. -A woman entrepreneur denied capital puts her entire family under strain. -A women-led organization underfunded means entire communities lose their frontline defenders against violence, poverty, and crisis. We stand at a critical juncture. Humanitarian systems are faltering. Financial systems remain inequitable. And nearly half of the women-led organizations serving crisis-affected populations may shut down within six months due to decreased aid. This is not a women’s issue—it is a community issue, a human issue. When women thrive, families stabilize, communities recover, and economies flourish. Read more in my recent blog for Alliance Magazine: https://lnkd.in/gmdUyPQU

43% less funding for female founding teams. The gap is widening. The stats from Dropbox DocSend’s 2024 Funding Divide report paints a dire picture: ↳ All-female teams raised 43% less than all-male teams in 2023. ↳ Racially diverse, all-female teams spent 25 weeks fundraising, a 75% increase from the previous year Yet secured the least funding, averaging $460K And this isn’t just about numbers. It’s about real people, real founders, facing real struggles. A while ago I shared Female Invest’s story behind their Series A. During their Series A raise, one of the founding team members was giving birth. They signed the term sheet the day before she was due. Instead of feeling excited, they felt terrified. Because of the prejudice that exists against female founders who start families. The expectation? That they’ll fail. As a male founder, I recognise that we have a huge role to play in changing this narrative. Balancing motherhood and entrepreneurship is tough. But let’s be honest—don’t all founders face challenges? We still have dinosaurs who believe women can’t do both. If you’re in a position to invest, advocate, or open doors for female founders—do it. Change won’t happen unless we make it happen.

I analyzed 2,521 startup investment deals across Africa. Here’s what I found: - Women-led startups raise less: Startups with a female CEO raised an average of $1.94M per deal. Those without female co-founders? $6.41M. → Diversity initiatives aren’t enough. Investors still favor male-led teams. - Experience and team size matter: Experienced founders attract more money → Investors prefer teams with seasoned entrepreneurs over recent grads. - Bigger founding teams raise bigger checks → Startups with more employees earn more trust and investment. - Fintech leads, but others are catching up: Fintech dominates with $6.9B in total funding. Yet, sectors like Energy & Water and Logistics are gaining traction.Surprisingly, Housing and Waste Management lag behind despite their importance. - Geography matters less than you think: Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, and Egypt raise the most. But: Algeria has the highest average deal size. Tunisia secured the largest single deal. - YC startups raise more: Y Combinator-backed startups raise an average of $8.89M per deal. Non-YC startups? $5.96M. Even with fewer YC-backed startups, the funding gap is clear. The gap is getting wider now that YC is retreating from Africa The real issue? Exits and funding labels →Exit potential drives investment, yet successful exits are under 1%. Funding stage labels (Pre-seed, Seed, Series A) lack clarity, leading to confusion and inefficiencies. What needs to change? → Support for gender diversity beyond surface-level initiatives. → More investment in overlooked sectors. → Clearer funding round definitions to avoid valuation confusion. → Better infrastructure for exits (IPOs, acquisitions).  Consider ♻️ resharing if this was useful.

In Q1 2025, African startups raised $460 million. Only 2% of that went to women. Exclude grants, and it drops to 0.7% just $3.2 million spread across an entire continent of women building real solutions. Let that sink in. Because while the funding is missing, the impact isn’t. A young founder in Northern Nigeria watched babies in her community die from malnutrition, not because their mothers were careless, but because they couldn’t afford imported baby cereal. So she created an alternative using millet, soybeans, and groundnuts all locally sourced. She trained youth. Partnered with rural women. And in months, over 500 children were being fed. She was solving a life-threatening problem. With local ingredients. With community hands. With visible results. But when she pitched to investors? “It’s a great idea. But it’s too early.” Too early even with traction? Too early even with lives saved? This is the pattern. We say we want innovation. We say we want inclusion. But when women show up with proven solutions, they’re clapped for not capitalized. Now imagine what could happen if they were actually funded: – Thousands more children nourished – Women earning and reinvesting in their communities – A replicable model for food security and job creation This isn’t just a gender issue. It’s an allocation issue. An accountability issue. A future-defining issue. If we keep starving the people doing the real work, what kind of future are we really building?

When I started my Master’s I wanted to understand why women’s rights organisations remain so chronically underfunded. What I found was a dangerous narrative: that gender equality has already “gone far enough” – or worse, that supporting women somehow means men and boys are being “left behind”. It sounds almost harmless at first, but it isn’t. This belief creates a zero-sum game where resources for women are framed as losses for men. And the impact is devastating. It gives funders and policymakers permission to withdraw support. It frames women’s rights as optional. It legitimises scarcity. And it keeps organisations who are holding families and communities together in survival mode. My research echoes what this recent article lays out so clearly: when we underfund women, we don’t just hurt women. We destabilise families, we weaken communities, and we create the very conditions that make life harder for men and boys. Because what happens when domestic violence shelters close? Boys grow up in trauma-filled homes. When women lose access to healthcare or income? Men face greater economic pressure as sole providers. When women entrepreneurs can’t access capital? Communities lose childcare, jobs, and safe spaces for children. These are not abstract issues. They are the ripple effects of chronic underfunding, and they affect everyone. That’s why the narrative of “men versus women” is so dangerous. It fragments the movement for equality, diverts already scarce resources away from women’s organisations, and blinds us to the truth: when women thrive, everyone thrives. Both my research and this article point to the same truth: underfunding women doesn’t only harm women. It hurts everyone. That’s why gender equality is not a favour for women. It’s a foundation for healthier families, workplaces, and societies.

One of the biggest turning points in my journey was discovering the power of mentorship. When I chaired the Kenya Association of Manufacturers I saw something striking — women entrepreneurs weren’t struggling because they lacked ideas or ambition. They were struggling because they lacked access — to the right networks, mentors, and investors. That realization led me to create Women in Manufacturing (WiM) — not just a program, but a movement. It became a space where women could connect with mentors who had already scaled businesses, tap into investor networks willing to back women-led enterprises, and gain practical training on business systems, financial structuring, and leadership. The impact? Over 200 women-led businesses linked to funding and growth opportunities. And yet, there’s still so much more to do. Because here’s the truth: connections open doors. When women are part of the right networks, their businesses shift — not just in survival mode, but scaling boldly. And for those of us who have climbed the ladder, it’s not enough to celebrate our own success. We have to turn around, extend a hand, and pull others up with us. But there’s something else we don’t talk about enough — the mindset shift. Too often, I’ve seen women hesitate to pitch for funding, waiting until every detail is perfect. Meanwhile, their male counterparts confidently present half-formed ideas — and walk away with millions in investment. I almost made this mistake myself. When investors once came knocking, I questioned whether I was "ready." Thankfully, I had mentors who pushed me to think bigger, to step into the next level before I felt fully prepared. We have to stop playing small. You don’t need all the answers to seek funding. Investors don’t just bet on perfection — they bet on vision and confidence. And here’s the bigger picture: this isn’t just about individual success. It’s about redesigning the system. Africa’s economic future depends on scaling women-led businesses. The $42 billion gender funding gap isn’t just a statistic — it’s a trillion-dollar opportunity waiting to be unlocked. So here’s my challenge to you: ✨ If you’re a woman entrepreneur — pitch boldly, join networks, and seek out mentors who push you higher. ✨ If you’re an investor — recognize that funding women isn’t charity. It’s smart, future-focused business. ✨ If you’re a policymaker — break down the barriers holding women back. The missing trillion is waiting. Let’s claim it — together. Are you ready to be part of the change? 💛 #womeninbusiness #scalemaster

At Intellecap, we have been spending a lot of time working with financiers and women entrepreneurs to enable and increase gender lens investing, especially at the intersection with climate. And while multiple challenges emerge, two key barriers remain across financers. ➡️ Sourcing of women-led enterprises, be it microenterprises, MSEs or startups (early to growth stages) ➡️ Unconscious bias, which could seep into any and every stage of the financing lifecycle Unconscious bias one was a particular eye opener for us when we facilitated an activity to assess it in the due diligence process: to two different groups, we shared two entrepreneur profiles wherein every aspect of their professional and personal life was same except one was a women entrepreneur and another, male. We asked the groups to draft three technical and non-technical questions each and there was a significant skew – the women entrepreneur was primarily asked prevention-oriented questions on both the technical and non-technical front. And while these challenges persist, we do see financiers going above and beyond in addressing them, observing concrete and positive on-ground change. Natalie Shriber and Sana Kapadia, in their recent piece for ImpactAlpha, present such funds – the ones that go beyond deploying capital by embedding gender-inclusive practices that builds ecosystems and enables their investments to thrive while creating sustained market change. Some interesting examples: ➡️KawiSafi Ventures: invests in energy and climate companies in Africa, hosts pitch competitions and initiatives to surface and support women and underrepresented entrepreneurs ➡️EcoEnterprises Fund: invests in sustainable agriculture, land use and ecotourism in Latin America, invites its investors to portfolio visits and knowledge-sharing calls to create opportunities for shared learning Closer home, we have spoken with funds that are really going beyond: ➡️Caspian Debt: target of disbursing greater than or equal to 30% of its total disbursements to women led or women impact businesses; women make 45% of the team, and 30% of the Credit Committee ➡️UC Impower: gender-balanced leadership and investment team with an explicit focus on supporting women founders; committed 30% of its capital toward women-led enterprises Even internally, as Aavishkaar Group, we recently had an unconscious bias training. As Natalie and Sana put it, “Without intentional efforts to expand the pipeline of investable opportunities – particularly for women and underrepresented groups – and advance the tools and best practices required to mobilize capital, transformative climate solutions risk going unrealized.” Yes, gender lens investing and particularly at the nexus with climate is niche; but intentional efforts do really see a change. And we are working with stakeholders across - on identifying investible opportunities, creating and advancing tools, and disseminating best practices. Do reach out if this is of interest!