Dive Brief:
- When women are CEOs, the companies they lead are significantly more likely than companies led by men to name women to boards and senior leadership positions, according to the 2026 Corporate Women Directors International Report.
- Nearly 40% of organizations with women CEOs also had women on their boards of directors, compared to the global average of nearly 30%. Meanwhile, at companies where a woman succeeded a man as CEO, the gender diversity on boards increased from an average of roughly 35% to about 56%.
- In addition to board diversification, nearly 37% of firms with women leaders have women executive officers, whereas the global average for women in C-suite positions is just 21%.
Dive Insight:
The report examined 3,222 blue-chip companies and found that only 215 (6.7%) had a woman as CEO.
However, at those 215 firms, there was a significant difference in terms of diversity metrics, regardless of location or company size.
“The data is clear: women CEOs aren’t just symbolic figures; they are engines of structural change,” Irene Natividad, CWDI’s chair, said in a statement. “They create a pipeline of talent that is often overlooked. Beyond equity, this leadership style is also linked to higher returns and better risk management based on numerous studies globally.”
In its report, CWDI found that “nearly a quarter of women-led companies have reached gender-equal or female-majority boards, and 22.3% have senior management teams that are 50% or more women.”
However, the percentage of women represented on Russell 3000 company boards is slipping, according to a May report from Equilar and 50/50 Women on Boards. The declines come amid widespread rollbacks to corporate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, which have noticeably affected women, per a 2025 Women in the Workplace Survey from Fairygodboss.
That research found that out of more than 400 women surveyed, 79% said they believed that recent news about the removal of DEI programs would negatively affect opportunities for women, with 83% specifically citing detrimental impacts to leadership opportunities.