A message forwarded by the right person, an impromptu lunch, a reassuring first contract: a funding round rarely begins with a form. For female founders, the obstacle is therefore not just convincing investors. They need to get on their radar, secure a credible referral, then present commercial evidence that can be difficult to obtain without connections. A network does not replace the business proposition; it influences the conditions under which that proposition will be judged. Looking ahead to September 2026, understanding these dynamics remains essential. The findings below draw on research and events documented through 2024; their potential implications are presented as forward-looking perspectives.
Funding begins before the pitch
In venture capital, a third-party introduction acts as a shortcut to trust. Investors receive more approaches than they can review. A referral from an entrepreneur they have already backed, an angel investor or a former colleague helps them select opportunities. This filtering is practical, but it favors people who are already close to the circles where capital circulates.
Yet these circles are not neutral. Alumni cohorts, former startup teams, technical communities and investor clubs partly reproduce the composition of their membership. When men predominate in these networks, referrals circulate more easily among men, without any explicit exclusion being necessary. Insular networks can create a gap without an openly discriminatory decision.
The phenomenon is evident in European data. Editions of Atomico’s State of European Tech report published through 2023 show that a very small share of capital goes to all-female teams. However, it is important to distinguish between all-female teams, mixed-gender teams and companies with at least one female founder: different definitions produce different results. These figures indicate an imbalance, but do not, on their own, isolate its causes.
A referral carries more than a name
Imagine two comparable companies. The first contacts a fund through its publicly listed email address. The second arrives with a message from a female executive at a portfolio company: “Strong team, worth meeting.” This illustrative scenario captures a common asymmetry. The second company benefits from prior validation; the first still has to prove that it deserves attention. The product has not changed, but its starting position has.
A referral also brings information that is otherwise out of sight: is the fund preparing to invest in this sector? Which partner will champion the deal? What revenue level does the fund actually expect? A female founder excluded from these conversations can lose weeks contacting unsuitable investors. The cost of a limited network can then be measured in cash burned, unproductive meetings and time diverted from sales.
Once the door is open, assessments may still differ. A study by Dana Kanze and her co-authors, published in 2018 in Academy of Management Journal, observed that, at a US entrepreneurship competition, questions put to men focused more on growth, while those put to women focused more on preventing losses. This finding does not describe every investor, but it illuminates a mechanism: defending your potential and justifying your caution do not lead to the same account of a business.
The first major client as an indirect investor
Business networks matter as much as financial contacts. In enterprise software, cybersecurity or industrial technology, a first recognized client can change how an investment opportunity is viewed. It brings revenue, a reference and sometimes access to other buyers. For a fund, it reduces some of the uncertainty surrounding demand.
But securing that contract often means finding a decision-maker willing to champion the project internally. A convincing demonstration is not always enough: the company must navigate procurement, IT security, legal reviews and budget decisions. A former colleague who now heads a business unit can ease that process. Without such an ally, a young company risks remaining stuck in unpaid or poorly paid pilots.
A vicious circle can then take hold: no funding without strong references, no references without the resources to deliver, and no resources without funding. Female founders are clearly not the only ones affected. Social background, location and professional history also compound these difficulties. But their combination with gender can multiply the barriers separating founders from decision-makers.
Why women’s networks are not enough
Female founder groups, women’s angel investor networks and business support programs offer useful responses. They enable members to share contacts, compare investment terms and prepare for negotiations. In France, the SISTA collective, launched in 2018, has notably brought funding inequalities and investor commitments into public debate.
Their effectiveness nevertheless depends on bridges to decision-making circles. A network can be rich in advice but short of people able to sign a check or a contract. Increasing the number of meetings among female entrepreneurs therefore does not automatically improve access to fund partners, investment committees and procurement leaders.
Mentoring must be distinguished from active sponsorship. A mentor offers advice; an active sponsor puts their reputation on the line, arranges a targeted meeting and follows up on the opportunity. For a female founder, that difference is tangible. An introduction to a buyer with a budget can be worth more than a succession of general workshops on self-confidence.
Changing the rules rather than fixing the candidates
Funds have straightforward levers available, even if none eliminates every bias. Opening an application channel is not enough if only referred applicants receive a response. The challenge is to make selection processes comparable and track where applications drop out.
- Track sources: compare the progress of direct applications and introductions, through to investment.
- Structure interviews: ask a common core of questions about growth, risks, the team and the market.
- Review decisions: document rejections and differences in progression from first meeting to in-depth review and offer.
- Open up commercial opportunities: arrange meetings with qualified buyers, not just events designed to raise visibility.
Large companies have their share of responsibility: paid pilots, clear decision timelines and a designated point of contact reduce dependence on personal relationships. Diversifying investment teams can also broaden the networks they draw on. But this guarantees nothing without genuine decision-making power and scrutiny of collective practices.
Measuring access, not just declaring intentions
Assessing progress requires more than an annual snapshot of funding raised. The stages need to be examined: who meets a partner, who reaches due diligence, who receives an offer, and on what terms? These comparisons must account for sector and stage of development. They can help identify a potential network-related bottleneck without automatically attributing every rejection to gender.
What next? Looking ahead to September 2026, the most credible progress would be less about networks disappearing than about their becoming measurably more open. If funds and major clients make their entry points more accessible, referrals could become an accelerator rather than a prerequisite. The aim is not to fund a company because it was founded by a woman, but to prevent its prospects from depending primarily on people she has never had the opportunity to meet.
