Gender Bias in Shareholder Activism: A Governance Risk and Investment Opportunity

In the evolving landscape of corporate governance, shareholder activism has emerged as a powerful force shaping leadership dynamics. Yet, beneath the surface of these campaigns lies a troubling pattern: female CEOs are disproportionately targeted, despite leading companies that often outperform their male-led counterparts. This imbalance not only reflects systemic gender bias but also creates mispricings in capital markets, offering a unique lens for investors to assess governance risk and identify undervalued opportunities.

The Disproportionate Targeting of Female CEOs

Data from The Conference Board reveals a stark disparity: between 2018 and 2025, women accounted for 16% of CEO-targeted shareholder activism campaigns despite representing only 6% of Russell 3000 CEOs. In 2025 alone, women made up 8% of CEOs but faced 15% of such campaigns, making them twice as likely to be targeted as their male peers. According to research, female CEOs are dismissed at similar rates regardless of firm performance, while male CEOs are more likely to retain their roles during strong financial results.

The root of this bias appears to lie in stereotypes and structural inequities. Activists often perceive female leaders as more cooperative, potentially easier to influence. Breaking the glass ceiling or reinforcing it? the "glass cliff" phenomenon-where women are disproportionately appointed during periods of decline-makes them more vulnerable to activist pressure. These dynamics create a self-reinforcing cycle: female CEOs are more likely to be scrutinized, criticized, and removed, even when their companies perform well.

Female-Led Companies Outperform, Yet Face Heightened Scrutiny

Despite the challenges, female-led companies have demonstrated superior financial performance. Over the past decade, S&P 500 firms with female CEOs delivered 384% total returns, compared to 261% for male-led counterparts. Research shows female-led companies have 33.6% women in leadership roles versus 27.9% in male-led firms. According to a report, these outcomes align with broader research showing that gender diversity correlates with better decision-making, innovation, and risk management.

Yet, this outperformance is often overlooked by activist campaigns. For instance, female-led companies in the Russell 3000 earn an average annual turnover of £10.4 million, compared to £6.1 million for male-led firms. Despite these metrics, female CEOs remain more than twice as likely to face activist pressure, suggesting a misalignment between performance and governance scrutiny. This disconnect hints at undervaluation, as markets may be discounting the long-term potential of these firms due to short-term activist narratives.

Governance Risks and the Case for Investor Vigilance

The disproportionate targeting of female CEOs introduces unique governance risks. Boards of female-led companies must navigate heightened shareholder pressure, which can destabilize leadership continuity and strategic focus. For example, activist campaigns often employ digital storytelling and governance narratives to sway institutional investors, leveraging gendered expectations to frame their demands. This creates a double standard: female CEOs are held to different performance benchmarks, and their leadership styles are evaluated through a gendered lens.

However, these risks also present opportunities. Investors who recognize the resilience of female-led companies-despite activist overreach-can capitalize on mispricings. For instance, while valuation metrics like P/E ratios and EV/EBITDA for female-led firms are not explicitly detailed in recent studies, their outperformance in turnover and returns suggests these metrics may be undervalued relative to fundamentals. By prioritizing governance structures that support diverse leadership and resist short-term activist pressures, investors can position themselves to benefit from long-term value creation.

The Investment Thesis: Undervalued Potential in Female-Led Firms

The intersection of gender bias and shareholder activism creates a compelling case for investing in female-led companies. These firms often operate in sectors with structural undervaluation, such as consumer goods, healthcare, and education, where activist campaigns are more prevalent. According to analysis, by adopting a governance-focused lens, investors can identify companies with strong leadership diversity, robust innovation pipelines, and resilient financial performance-qualities that are likely to drive outperformance in the coming years.

Moreover, addressing gender bias in activism aligns with broader ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) trends. As institutional investors increasingly prioritize diversity metrics, the current mispricing of female-led firms may correct, unlocking value for early adopters.

Conclusion

The data is clear: gender bias in shareholder activism skews governance risk assessments and distorts market valuations. Female-led companies, despite outperforming their peers, face disproportionate scrutiny and undervaluation. For investors, this represents both a cautionary tale and an opportunity. By recognizing the systemic biases at play and focusing on governance structures that support diverse leadership, investors can mitigate long-term risks while capitalizing on the untapped potential of female-led enterprises.

[1] Report: Women CEOs are Twice as Likely to Be Targeted [https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/report-women-ceos-are-twice-as-likely-to-be-targeted-by-shareholder-activism-campaigns-302631468.html]
[2] Women CEOs Face Disproportionate Pressure as Shareholder Activism Surges [https://www.fairplaytalks.com/2025/12/12/women-ceos-face-disproportionate-pressure-as-shareholder-activism-surges-report-finds/]
[3] Report: Women CEOs are Twice as Likely to Be Targeted [https://www.conference-board.org/press/shareholder-activism-2025]
[4] Women CEOs are more often activist targets, study finds [https://www.axios.com/2025/12/03/victorias-secret-fortune-500-women-ceo]
[5] Breaking the Glass Ceiling or Reinforcing It? Hedge Fund Activism and Board Gender Diversity [https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/AMPROC.2025.16634abstract]
[6] Board diversity and shareholder voting [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0929119923001360]
[7] Why Women-Led Businesses Outperform: A Report [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/thea-sokolowski_the-data-shows-the-results-arent-even-close-activity-7356970157379833857-IiCu]
[8] A Psychological and Structural Perspective on Activist [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/01492063251335563]
[9] Women-led companies outperform those led by men [https://www.businessage.com/post/women-led-companies-outperform-those-led-by-men-despite-often-facing-more-barriers]
[10] How gender biases shape investor response to shareholder activism [https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2024/10/how-gender-biases-shape-investor-response-shareholder-activism]
[11] CEO Gender and Investor Support for Activist Campaigns [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355572697_Choosing_Sides_CEO_Gender_and_Investor_Support_for_Activist_Campaigns]
[12] Report: Women CEOs are Twice as Likely to Be Targeted [https://www.morningstar.com/news/pr-newswire/20251203ny37824/report-women-ceos-are-twice-as-likely-to-be-targeted-by-shareholder-activism-campaigns]
[13] Activist campaigns more likely to target female CEOs [https://www.ft.com/content/58d24841-7f9f-494c-a9f2-fe248f6e7c11]