Despite years of advocacy, the majority of global capital still flows through systems that fail to serve women entrepreneurs equitably. The data is stubborn: female-founded businesses receive a fraction of venture funding worldwide, and in many markets the gap is widening. This is not because women are less capable or less ambitious, but because the models, networks, and incentives that shape capital allocation were not built with us in mind.
An often glossed-over fact is that Black women in particular are the most structurally excluded when it comes to access to funding. They sit at the intersection of racial and gender-based exclusion and are systemically underrepresented both in the portfolios and in the firms that manage capital. In most cases, they don’t feature at all.
In South Africa, as elsewhere, the barriers are layered. Collateral requirements linked to large asset base ownership exclude many women, who are less likely to hold these in their names due to historical patterns of exclusion and dispossession, from debt finance. Investment committees that lack diversity often replicate familiar patterns in who they back. The risk calculus in venture capital remains anchored to a narrow set of founder profiles, and gender-lens investing is too often treated as an impact “add-on” rather than a mainstream investment discipline.
The irony is that the case for gender-lens investing has never been stronger. Study after study has linked diverse leadership teams to stronger financial performance, better governance, and greater innovation. The Gender Diversity Report – 2025 underscores this point, noting that:
“Capital allocation has historically excluded and currently excludes women - not due to lack of potential, but due to structural and systemic biases baked into traditional assessment models. Diverse investment committees make different decisions, and the increased presence of women investors is critical to shaping more inclusive investment outcomes.”
The question is not whether there is value in gender-lens investing, but why it remains siloed. Is it because Limited Partners (LPs) – the pension funds, development finance institutions, family offices, and other investors who commit capital to funds – aren’t requiring it? Is it because fund managers fear it will limit their deal pipeline? Or is it because the market still rewards capital deployment speed over thoughtful inclusion?
Some investors are beginning to challenge these assumptions. In my own work, I have seen how representative decision-making bodies lead to different investment outcomes, and how removing collateral barriers opens space for a wider pool of founders. I have also seen the catalytic effect when LPs set explicit expectations for gender diversity in portfolios. That single shift in mandate can force a rethink in how capital is allocated and monitored.
Bias – whether conscious or unconscious – is persistent in the investment landscape. Mitigating it requires more than good intentions. It demands deliberate governance structures, consistent internal reflection and teams that are equipped to challenge prevailing norms.
The connection between who sits at the investment table and who ultimately receives funding is also reflected in the SAVCA Venture Capital Industry Survey 2025. While the report does not yet provide a full breakdown of capital flows to women entrepreneurs, it shows important progress:
“42.1% of fund managers reported at least one female founder, with three fund managers reporting an all-female ownership.”
This is more than a statistic. It points to a structural truth: when women are present as fund managers, founders, or on investment committees, the likelihood of capital flowing to female-led businesses increases. In other words, representation on the capital allocation side shapes outcomes on the entrepreneurial side.
For gender-lens investing to become the norm, we need to move beyond awareness into structural change:
- LPs should set measurable expectations for gender diversity in portfolio companies.
- Fund managers and investment companies should review their governance structures to ensure bias is identified and mitigated.
- The industry should innovate financing tools that reflect the realities of diverse founders.
Supporting women in business cannot be confined to a campaign during Women’s Month. Supporting women in business should not be reduced to a once-a-year campaign or a round of back-patting during Women’s Month. It cannot be lip service. For us, it is the norm. It is embedded in how we assess opportunities, structure deals and govern our portfolio. Our investment committee which is comprised of over 50% women which has led to over 50% of our invested capital deployed into women-led or women-owned businesses. We intentionally co-invest alongside blue-chip venture funds into businesses with at least 25% female ownership.
These aren’t stats to posture - they are benchmarks for what is possible when structural commitment meets capital strategy.
Gender-lens investing is not a side initiative. It has to be embedded in the way capital is deployed every day. Until we normalise that, we will continue to leave both impact and returns on the table.
