Women in biotech leadership: Representation at C-suite

Forewords

Jane Wall, Managing Director, BIA

This report was born out of a lack of data focused on women in leadership roles in UK biotech and inspirational discussions with many people through the Women in Biotech network, encouraging us as BIA to pick up the mantle of support for gender equity in senior sector positions. We knew that entry-level was not the real challenge – it was as women moved up through the ranks that they were disappearing. Anecdotally we knew also that as biotech companies moved beyond Seed and Series A, the numbers of female CEOs were seriously limited.

The arguments for diversity in leadership positions are widely accepted, so why was gender equity continuing to be so visibly missing? This report not only seeks to provide us with some UK sector-specific data for the first time but also, through the surveys and the interviews we conducted, to provide some lived experience of women currently (and previously) in these leadership positions. Our ultimate aim is an effort to understand ‘why’ and to set out some initial ideas on how we can collectively move this dial.

Anne Horgan, Partner, Cambridge Innovation Capital Limited

At Cambridge Innovation Capital, we invest in disruptive companies, creating world-class businesses based on exceptional innovation. We believe diversity drives the best outcomes and are proud to support BIA’s Women in Biotech.

Over my 25 years in the biotech ecosystem, I have observed first-hand the scarcity of women in positions of seniority. This holds true for biotech, pharma, venture capital and boards, and while several organisations, including BIA, have reported and analysed female representation, there is still a lack of granular sector-specific data on women-led companies and the financing they secure.

As an investor deeply committed to supporting female leaders in Life Sciences, I welcome BIA’s initiative, building on their DEI report, to investigate the challenges women face in leadership roles and urged, as a member of WIB Advisory Group, for the collection of robust data to better understand why representation is still low.

Although progress has been made over the last decade, much remains to be done, including improving female representation on boards and among investors.

This report, enriched by surveys and interviews, offers valuable insights into the challenges faced by women in biotech leadership. It is a crucial first step toward identifying actionable solutions for greater gender equality in our industry.

Sponsored by: 

 

 

With thanks to:

Wendy Quainoo for the data collection and analysis; Saqib Lal for editorial; Alina O’Keeffe for design; Kate Barclay for original scoping and conducting the interviews; Anne Horgan for the challenging questions, advice and review of the various drafts; Annalisa Jenkins for review and commentary. Thank you to all the women who contributed to the report through the survey and the interviews, and to the WIB Advisory Group for the ongoing strategic guidance and support.

Executive summary

This report is the first step in understanding the specific challenges faced by female CEOs and C-suite in biotechnology in the UK – in order to understand best how we (BIA, the broader sector and government) can help to enact change and provide relevant support.

Analysis undertaken over 10 years shows that there is now a meaningfully significant number of females in the UK sitting in the CEO chair. Post-COVID-19 however numbers of female CEOs seem to be growing with the market but not changing as a percentage versus men. If this trend continues, the growth in representation will potentially stall altogether in the coming 2-3 years.

On capital raised - our data shows that in the more subdued deal flow years of 2022-2023, percentage of money raised by females surpassed their percentage representation (punching above their weight), but as large rounds kicked in in a riskier environment in 2024, companies run by female CEOs have trailed.

On deals done – our data shows females outperforming, e.g. in 2022, females made up 17% of CEOs but raised 22% of capital and did 25% of the deals. Even in 2024, with only 8% of capital raised by females, they were responsible for 22% of deals, whilst representing only 18% of CEOs.

Data shows that females are more creative and resourceful in difficult environments, but less confident in asking for bigger sums as funding rounds get larger. VCs and boards easily retrench to ‘known’ management teams when the environment is perceived as risky and a negative mindset towards female CEOs still pervades.

Our survey revealed that for female CEOs external stakeholder bias from investors and funders, and/or board bias, are the most prevalent challenges faced.

The picture changes as we look at responses from broader C-suite respondents, where work-life balance, family and personal/professional development are more prominent challenges.

In the UK we have data to evidence female leaders punching above their weight in fundraising and some truly inspirational leaders to be feted. We also have an incredibly strong and growing cohort of early-stage female founders and CEOs continuing to create and lead innovative startups – the data demonstrates they are doing this highly successfully.

If we do not address the challenges that face females as companies mature to different stages, combined with life and career over time, we are in danger of losing an incredible swathe of female talent to conscious or unconscious bias and lack of support/backing – ultimately to the detriment of the sector and UK plc.

Introduction

Welcome to the BIA’s Women in biotech leadership report – a sector first in data and thought leadership. The analysis undertaken was inspired by our incredible Women in Biotech network and the Advisory Group that help guide our direction – and initially, by our UK sector-first Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) report published in 2023.

The DEI in biotech report demonstrated a number of clear challenges for the sector, providing a steer to BIA on where we could support our member companies in developing a more diverse and inclusive workforce (the very clear societal and business rationale for which is described in detail in the report accessible online at diversityinbiotech.org). On gender, the results were not what we expected, with a very healthy pre-managerial pipeline of females coming into the sector at 55% of relevant respondents. However, this level of representation dipped at the Manager level to 51%, with the balance tipping towards a greater proportion of male senior leaders and a reduction of female representation to 31.5% at C-suite.

We knew that with participant companies being self-selecting, this number was optimistic – however, it was very clear from the data and anecdotally at that point that females were leaving senior leadership roles in biotech, and that underrepresentation in top leadership positions was glaring, in particular as companies matured.

Whilst sector-agnostic and high-level data is available (e.g. Invest in Women Taskforce) there is little indication or exploration as to why these patterns persist. Various generalist reports point to a lack of inclusive practices and reporting in the workplace, and from many studies (not least Claudia Goldin’s Nobel Prize-winning studies on key drivers of gender differences in the labour market) we know that parenting and the significant caring roles that females play have been proven to be detrimental to careers and the gender gap in general. However, in addition to the usual suspects, the biotech and innovative life sciences sector presents very specific challenges:

• Most SMEs are privately owned (so not duty-bound to report DEI stats publicly or answerable to shareholders)
• Companies are heavily reliant on regular funding rounds (grant and VC) and external sources of collaboration. Investment in the sector is also seen as high risk.
• The sector is already interfaced with finance and increasingly with technology and engineering - all highly male-dominated sectors.
• The sector is a high-risk environment, with precarious job and income security.
• Many statistics on the gender of founders have been explored, however, founders of biotech companies, in particular those originating in an academic setting, don’t tend to end up leading the biotech company based on their work in the long run.

We were challenged to obtain rigorous data, specific to our industry, to consider the different hurdles at different stages of a company and different levels of career in order to provide a more granular view of the factors causing females to either not want to aspire to be a CEO – or to leave before, or once they got there. Also to obtain robust and more granular statistics on female-led companies' performance in fundraising.

Dan Mahony, BIA Board Chair and Life Sciences Investment Envoy

The BIA’s latest report is an important signal for investors and the broader life sciences sector. While the industry has made progress over the past decade, the data highlight a concerning slowdown in leadership diversity. As investors, we see first-hand how diverse perspectives strengthen decision-making, drive innovation, and ultimately lead to better business outcomes. Yet, systemic barriers continue to limit female representation at the highest levels. This is not just a question of equity—it’s a matter of economic and sectoral competitiveness.

If the UK is to retain its position as a global biotech leader, we must ensure that investment strategies actively support and incentivise diverse leadership teams.

I urge my peers in the investment community to recognise the opportunity here and take meaningful steps to back women-led ventures.

Michelle Teng, CEO, Etcembly Ltd

This report puts numbers to what many of us already know: female biotech CEOs deliver results, yet we continue to face scepticism where it matters most—raising capital and securing leadership opportunities. When women lead, they outperform. We drive more deals, are resourceful in tough environments, and build successful companies despite the systemic barriers in place. But without action, the industry risks losing an entire generation of female leadership. 

The status quo is not just unfair; it is unsustainable. If we continue to overlook and underfund women in biotech, we are not only failing talented leaders—we are failing science, innovation, and the long-term competitiveness of our sector. The solution is within our grasp: equitable investment, diverse boards, intentional mentorship, and an industry culture that champions talent over tradition.

The future of biotech depends on the best minds leading the most promising innovations. Let’s make sure we’re not leaving half of them behind.

Annalisa Jenkins, Non-Executive Director, Compass Pathways

This sector-first report provides valuable insights into both the progress and ongoing challenges for females in biotech leadership. While we have seen encouraging signs over the past 10 years—good growth in the absolute number of female CEOs sitting in the role and who are successfully securing a strong share of completed transactions and earlier stage fundraising —the data also highlights areas where momentum is stalling. In particular, the marked decline in female NED representation, a stalling in the appointments of females into the chair role combined with the evident reluctance to routinely consider female candidates for the top job highlight the ongoing challenges for highly qualified talented females seeking to take their seat at the top table.

Serving on multiple boards across the sector, I have seen first-hand how board composition shapes both executive appointments and decision-making. Ensuring a diversity of perspectives at the top is not just about representation—it strengthens governance, widens strategic thinking, and ultimately delivers more resilient sustained growth and benefit across the entire industry.

As the UK life sciences sector continues to evolve as a core pillar of the broader UK plc agenda, we must all consider how to better ensure access to the best talent at the board and C-suite level that will deliver the depth and breadth of thought that aligns with evolving business needs, investor confidence, and sector growth. This report provides robust data, important insights and thus a strong foundation for further discussion among boards, investors, and policymakers.

Methodology

This report analyses leadership barriers for female executives in biotechnology companies based in the UK. The data was collected through PitchBook, a survey and supplemented with secondary data sources, including Thelander, and PIR International.

• Data sources and classification
• Company stage classification
• Survey design and data collection

Data sources and classification

The study incorporates external data from Thelander, PitchBook Data Inc. and PIR International.

PitchBook analysis is based on UK-headquartered companies classified under the following industry codes, as of November 2024:

• Biotechnology
• Discovery tools (Healthcare)
• Drug delivery
• Drug discovery
• Pharmaceuticals

Company stage classification

Companies were categorised using PitchBook’s deal classifications:

• Seed: Financing classified as Seed, or rounds fitting specific government-reported criteria.
• Early-stage venture: Typically includes Series A and B funding rounds.
• Later-stage venture: Generally, consists of Series C, D, or later financing rounds.
• IPOs.
• Follow-on investments: Includes secondary offerings and PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity) deals:
  • Secondary offerings: Public sale of new stock by a company post-IPO.

PIPE investments: Private investors acquiring securities directly from a publicly traded company.

Survey design and data collection

The BIA designed and distributed this survey to female C-suite executives in UK biotechnology companies to identify the key barriers they face in advancing and succeeding in leadership roles.

Respondents were asked to rank a predefined list of 12 leadership barriers, from first hindrance (most significant) to last hindrance (least significant). These barriers were:

• Lack of inclusive leadership
• Lack of mentorship, sponsorship, or professional development opportunities
• Lack of flexible work arrangements/work-life balance
• Maternal wall bias (bias against mothers or those assumed to have caregiving responsibilities)
• Unconscious/conscious bias within their organisation (co-founders, leadership, board)
• Unconscious/conscious bias from external stakeholders (investors, funding assessors, consultants, etc.)
• Lack of inclusive networking opportunities
• Lack of supportive government initiatives for women in biotech/tech
• Lack of role models/visible female leaders in their organisation
• Unequal access to key assignments/projects
• Lack of recognition
• Lack of confidence/ability to influence

A total of 66 female C-suite executives (UK-based) completed the survey.

Objectives

This report is the first step in understanding the specific challenges faced by female CEOs and C-suite in biotechnology – in order to best understand how we (BIA, the broader sector and government) can help to enact change and provide relevant support. It aims to do the following:

 

Analyse and compare numbers of female and male in CEO and C-suite positions in the UK over the last decade, and also break these down into company stages, capital raised and deal counts.

 

Survey UK CEO and C-suite females to explore perceived primary challenges to them in their roles and careers and interview UK CEO and C-suite females (anonymously) to delve further into their experiences, which provides validation and additional context to the survey responses.

 

Identify the main challenges facing females in leadership – at different stages of a company, life and career (focussing on C-suite and CEO) in order to consider the next steps.

Focus on CEO and C-suite

Individual experience varies widely and combinations of factors play out in different ways, at different times through careers and lives. We recognised that tackling all levels of career in this first report would be too expansive, so we have addressed CEOs and C-suite only, looking to examine the apex of leadership in the first instance. Also, in recognition that companies led by females are more likely to have better representation throughout – be that due to optics or to active encouragement and inspiration from a female leader and therefore can be transformational beyond the single role.

Proportion of female CEOs in UK biotech

Data from PitchBook shows only 17-18% of CEOs in UK biotech are female. Looking across all C-suite, the pattern is similar, with only the COO role pushing beyond 30% female representation.

A snapshot comparison with US data from 2024 shows that, whilst our COO and CBO stats continue to be slightly stronger and CFO and CSO almost identical, the CEO and CTO representation is stronger in the US. Perhaps this speaks to the maturity of the industry there, however, levels of representation overall are not dissimilar.

Source: Thelander, 2025

Slowing progress 

Analysis undertaken over a 10-year period from Pitchbook shows that there was a period of significant growth in the UK of biotech companies particularly pre-COVID-19. It appears that the appointment of female CEOs largely met or exceeded slightly those growth rates as percentage representation increased over time and the good news is that there is now a meaningfully significant number of females in the UK sitting in the CEO chair. Company creation slowed during COVID-19 and it appears that the rate of appointment of females as a percentage of total did not change. Post-COVID-19, numbers of female CEOs seem to be growing with the market but no longer changing positively as a percentage versus males.

 If this trend continues, the growth in representation will potentially stall altogether in the coming 2-3 years.

This trend is also recognised in the US (Women Leaders Decline in Biotech’s Era of ‘Proven Leadership’ - BioSpace) where it is claimed the percentage of named female biotech executives at US companies dropped from 20.1% in 2022 to 18.3% in 2023 and since October 2023 just over 8% of biotechs with early raises have been run by females.

Recognising the strong link between diversity on boards and C-suite, it is particularly concerning to see the latest figures from PIR International on board remuneration and diversity which show a significant decrease in female board representation from 2023-2024, with a drop in female chairs from 25% to 22% and a drop in NEDs from 21% to 9%. With the report claiming that 70-80% of NEDs and chairs hired between Pre-seed and Series A, this spells significant consequences for the future of female CEO hiring.

Boards have the ability to appoint and dismiss CEOs, so with representation at NED and chair roles going backwards it is effectively males (and often the investors in an SME) who are making the decisions. 

Source: PIR International 2025 EU/UK Biotech Board Remuneration & Diversity Study, 2025

Stages of company and size of funding rounds

In terms of starting to create some granularity around how female representation changes through the stages of biotechnology companies and identify useful patterns and insights, we pulled out a basic comparison of representation vs company stage over time.

Anecdotally there are strong indications that as company stages progress and funding rounds become larger, representation decreases. Our data comparison across stages and years provides an inconsistent picture so it is difficult to draw any conclusions, although overall there is some improvement in representation over time across all stages except later stage VC where the % representation is lower in 2024 than in 2018.

We then looked at capital raises for male and female-led companies compared with CEO representation as companies moved from one stage to the next. Our data shows that in the more subdued deal flow years of 2022-2023, % money raised by females surpassed their % representation (punching above their weight) in 2022 but as large rounds kick in in a riskier environment in 2024, companies run by female CEOs have trailed.

When growth capital, crossover rounds and public markets kick in it is clear that the VC world is now placing bets on people they know and who have made them money before, putting female CEO, in particular first-time female CEOs, definitely at a disadvantage - because networks, external focus and prior experience matter.

The exception to this is at Seed stage, where representation in 2024 is at 25% and proportion of total capital raised by those CEOs was 32%.

As large funding rounds can skew statistics, particularly in the UK, we then also looked at the number of deals done vs representation and this provides a positive picture of the performance of female CEOs, relative to their % representation. In 2022 for example, females made up 17% of CEOs but raised 22% of capital and did 25% of the deals. Even in 2024, with only 8% of capital raised by females, they were responsible for 22% of the deals, whilst representing only 18% of CEOs.

Honing in specifically on 2024, in addition to outperforming on capital raised at seed stage, they also outperform on number of deals vs representation at Seed, Early-stage and Late-stage VC.

The data would lead us to ask why, if females’ performance at the CEO level is proportionately high, is representation stalling, and why do females continue to be perceived as unproven and risky options as a CEO choice? A hypothesis could be that females are more creative and resourceful in difficult environments, but less confident in asking for bigger sums as funding rounds get larger. Our interviews indicated that VCs and boards easily retrench to ‘known’ management teams that are usually male and that when the environment is perceived as risky, the negative mindset towards female CEOs pervades.

Barriers

Barriers to female CEOs

Quantitative analysis can provide us with the data points and a clear enough picture of current status and trends, but why has progress for female representation at CEO been so challenging, and why is now stalling after some years of (slow) incremental improvement? We needed to move beyond the data to ask CEOs about their personal experience and perceived challenges – in order to consider how these can be addressed.

We surveyed UK CEOs in order to delve further into the factors they deemed to be the most challenging to them as female biotech leaders – 50 CEOs responded.

We asked them to rank the following factors from 1-12 in perceived importance (see Methodology).

The results were very clear with a stark consistency in the leading factor: external stakeholder bias (from investors, funders and advisors): 45% of all respondents ranked this as number one, with a further 20% ranking it number two. Other factors featuring top of CEOs' challenges were lack of confidence and ability to influence (19%); lack of mentorship/sponsorship (18%) and internal stakeholder bias (16%, also coming in as second most concerning factor overall with 35% ranking this number three).

Splitting this out again by company stage, an interesting change in top ranking challenges occurs, where companies move from Seed to Series A, and Internal stakeholder bias supersedes external bias as the no.1 challenge.

From Series B onwards, external bias is very clearly again the more prominent, with internal bias as a consistent no.2. It should be noted that numbers for later stage CEOs are small, so less statistically reliable, however the responses demonstrate consistency across real/perceived challenges for CEOs at this stage.

So, it is clear that for female CEOs external stakeholder bias from investors and funders, and/or board bias are the most prevalent challenges faced. We know that there is a clear link between the makeup of the board and the hiring of the C-suite and it is no surprise to see that with board and NED representation down so drastically, we are seeing a correlation in the lack of progress at CEO level. We also know that females back females, and that representation in the investment community is even more urgent.

These data points offer insights applicable to every sector.

Barriers to female C-suite

Different career and life stages present different challenges

Interestingly the responses from CEOs demonstrate that at this stage of career, inclusive work practices, flexibility and maternal wall bias do feature as factors but they are rarely named as the primary challenge. A working hypothesis here (supported through the interviews conducted) is that a majority of CEOs are older with fewer direct caring responsibilities – or have had to resolve these challenges practically in order to take on a CEO role (hired help, supportive/stay-at-home partners and family assistance). Many CEOs spend the majority of their time raising capital: this is not conducive to work life balance and some females may self-select out before they get to this stage. However, interviews did shine a light on the fact that, unsurprisingly, challenges for CEOs with young children (in the minority) still strongly include maternal and board bias.

The story is different as we look at responses from broader C-suite respondents, where work-life balance, family and personal/professional development are more prominent. This group (as next-generation CEOs) is an incredibly important cohort to consider and support as they deal with the existing challenges of an ambitious female career, whilst looking ahead to a potential future role that often looks unfeasible (due to logistics and caring responsibilities) or unattractive (requiring/tackling different leadership styles and culture).

Challenges

Summary of key challenges:

Investor confidence and lack of diverse representation in Investment

Investor confidence in, and unconscious/conscious bias towards female-led biotech companies remains a significant challenge. Data suggests that post-2022 downturn, investors exhibited increased risk aversion, often favouring established, male-dominated companies and serial management teams, even though our statistics on fundraising vs representation and other evidence (for example, the BCG Report 'Why Women-Owned Startups Are a Better Bet') demonstrate that female-led companies can statistically achieve stronger performance.

Representation in the Investment community remains poor, leading to female entrepreneurs being less likely to be backed and deep-rooted bias persists. Our interviews would suggest that this is frequently borne out in blatant discrimination and is compounded further when CEOs are young, ethnically diverse and/or have young children.

Power of boards: poor progress in board and NED representation

The CEO survey and interviews had a strong emphasis on the role of the board in supporting female CEOs (and chairs) and the makeup of the board has a strong correlation with the diversity of the company leadership team. With no quotas in the UK and only investors to answer to, boards remain incredibly non-diverse, and the recent PIR International survey would suggest that this is getting worse. This does not bode well for the future of diversity at C-suite. Female board chairs are also not immune, with, for example, untypical chair tasks and roles expected of them because they are female.

 

Pressures of additional caring responsibilities

For a wide range of females at C-suite, caring responsibilities (recognised as a role that more frequently lies with females, even at the leadership level – and described extensively in our interviews) can be a significant barrier to wanting to take on a C-suite role or remaining in one. That can include being pregnant and having children, also looking after elderly relatives and others requiring care. A diverse C-suite is more likely to accommodate and look after such individuals, however with diversity lacking, it is clear that this is perceived both as a negative where a female CEO is concerned and also recognised as a barrier by the woman herself (linked to how the situation will be perceived by the board and investors). Where support is lacking, this will often be a breaking point in a leadership career.

 

Lack of network, mentors and peers

In interviews, it was clear that, whilst some CEO and C-suite had found supportive networks and found them to be a lifeline, a number of interviewees and respondents to the survey cited the lack of networks in their earlier careers as detrimental to confidence. In the present day, a lack of networks matching an individual’s experience (be that CEOs with small children, younger CEOs with relatively limited experience in the sector etc.) was cited as something significantly missing.

As companies develop and the funding landscape becomes more challenging, strong networks and connections are important, and these are often missing for women who are more likely to be first time CEOs.

 

Organisational culture and challenges of flexibility

An outcome of COVID-19 was, for many organisations, a shift to more flexible working patterns which has generally been seen as very welcome and progressive. We need to ask ourselves then why this more inclusive approach has not produced more equality at leadership levels. A recent study from Oxford Brookes University and Advanced Oxford suggests that some policies (if not meshed with a truly inclusive company culture) will work against females.

Work-life balance policies are mainly used by females to cope with the double burden of managing work and care/home-related tasks. When females use these policies or take career breaks, they are perceived as less dedicated to work compared to males, in effect creating a stigma around the use of such policies. Consequently, males are less likely to use such policies, but females often do not have a choice. When questioning the dire and worsening state of representation at the leadership level, this is an important challenge – and the proverbial importance of ‘being in the room’ is stark.

 

General DEI pushback

The broader societal and political climate presents a significant obstacle to progress. This includes a resurgence of anti-diversity sentiments and a decline in support for inclusive policies, as exemplified by recent political rhetoric.

 

Tech influence

The increasing emphasis on technology within the biotech sector presents a unique set of challenges for females. As this field and the culture associated remain heavily male-dominated, females may face strong cultural barriers navigating tech-driven leadership roles. Representation in computational roles is poor from early career stages, and worse as career stages progress (see BIA DEI report on computational roles).

Conclusions

This report set out to be a first step in understanding the specific challenges faced by female CEOs and C-suite in biotechnology – in order to best understand how we (BIA, the broader sector and government) can help to enact change and provide relevant support.

While some positives should be more broadly communicated (and celebrated), the data analysis paints a challenging picture for the sector and females in leadership. Progress has stalled, and in some areas has taken a significant step backwards – despite evidence pointing to the positive effectiveness of female leadership. Bias remains entrenched, representation is faltering at board level and investor attitude remains challenging. Meanwhile, areas of progress such as flexible working policies could actually be reinforcing stereotypes and working against females in leadership roles if not also being taken up equally by male counterparts. In addition, we could not have known when we conceived this report, that the external environment would have made this such an urgent discussion, with the very concept of conscious and unconscious bias now being questioned across research projects and teaching in the US. 

On a positive note, we have data to evidence female leaders punching above their weight in fundraising and some truly inspirational leaders to be feted. In the UK we also have an incredibly strong and growing cohort of early-stage female founders and CEOs continuing to create and lead innovative startups – the data demonstrates they are doing this highly successfully. However, if we do not address the challenges that face females as companies mature to different stages, combined with life and career over time, we are in danger of losing an incredible swathe of female brilliance to conscious or unconscious bias and lack of support/backing – ultimately to the detriment of the sector and UK plc.

Next steps

The uniqueness of this report has been to:

• Create a granular picture of female entrepreneurship and leadership in biotech in the UK – moving beyond top-line, generic statistics to identify what is happening
• Look in more detail at the company and career stage to drill down into specific challenges faced as females move through careers and life in biotech leadership, with the survey and interviews providing context and much depth to the data

Our ambition is that the quantitative and qualitative research provided by this report will enable us collectively to create a ‘framework of support’ for our existing and future female leaders in biotech that will take into account the different challenges of company stage, life stage and career stage.

Potential next steps to explore:

• Collaborate and support
• Communicate
• Advocate

Collaborate and support

• Work with the Investment community to support female investors in life sciences and build the CEO/investor networks.
• Work with executive research firms to develop a better-known pool of female NEDs and board chairs
• Work with organisations such as Leaders Plus to provide programmes actively supporting senior females with young families (Leaders Plus Fellowship application deadline is 1 April)
• Work with Innovate and grant providers to improve diversity of assessors and accessibility to application and assessment processes.
• Continue to develop strong networks of women in biotech leadership (leadership networking and connection in particular for C-suite and first-time CEOs), WIB mentoring programme for future and existing leaders.

Communicate

• Promote female leadership in the sector, socialising and publicising the positive statistics around female-led companies. WIB events and campaign.

Advocate

• Consider the challenge of board diversity in the private sector and explore solutions (learn from Public Sector reporting and quotas).
• Identify and advocate for policies that support females in STEM, finance, entrepreneurship and leadership roles within scaling organisations.
• Work with benchmarking organisations (e.g. Thelander) to ensure transparency and reporting around pay gaps.