Women TechEU faces scrutiny over gender bias and bureaucracy

Women TechEU — not to be confused with our publication Tech.eu —  is a European Union–funded initiative designed to support early-stage deeptech startups led by women across Europe.

It offers early-stage deep tech startups led by women €75,000 in equity-free funding to support critical development activities such as product refinement, market validation and business model optimisation.

A debate over the program’s application feedback sparked controversy on LinkedIn this week. It highlights the uphill battle faced by female founders in their quest for funding.

Mary Boryslawska is the co-founder of Enzum, a Tallinn-based climate tech startup founded in 2023 by  Boryslawska (CEO) and Anna Gerlich (CTO). The company specialises in AI-driven energy storage optimisation, aiming to enhance battery efficiency and support the transition to renewable energy.

Enzum's platform leverages advanced machine learning algorithms to provide real-time insights into battery health, including metrics like State of Charge (SoC) and State of Health (SoH). These insights enable optimised charging schedules and trading strategies, ultimately extending battery lifespan and reducing operational costs. 

"Above threshold, not selected"

Enzum applied for a Women TechEU grant. However, the company unfortunately did not score high enough to be funded, based on feedback according to the Women TechEU feedback sheet — both a decision notice and a diagnostic tool that informs applicants whether their proposal was selected for funding. It provides a breakdown of scores across key criteria (Excellence, Impact, and Implementation), and includes detailed evaluator comments highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. 

Applications are assessed by two suitably qualified, anonymous evaluators. 

It helps applicants understand how their proposal was assessed and offers guidance for future resubmissions. If there are concerns about procedural errors, it also outlines the process for submitting a formal appeal.

Boryslawska shared her concerns on LinkedIn: 

Boryslawska told me: 

“Last year, we received feedback from a reviewer that included gendered language. When we appealed, they claimed they had sent us someone else’s feedback by mistake.

Then they sent us a “new” version—with the exact same scores down to the decimal point, just without the gendered terms. It made no sense.”

“They invited us to reapply. But when we did, they immediately rejected us, saying our product was now too advanced — despite the fact that nothing had changed. It felt targeted, like they were just annoyed that we had pushed back. That’s when I decided to speak publicly about it.”

I have reviewed the documents in question, including an appeal. The original feedback sheet from the two anonymous evaluators states:

Evaluator 1: 

“The woman founder is clearly passionate about the problem that her company is solving”

Evaluator 2: 

“The team needs to be strengthened by bringing in members with the required expertise.

Efforts should be made to ensure gender-equitable leadership, as well as a commitment to equal opportunities within the team structure.”

So there are two key issues here: the focus on women founders and the broader challenges that women face securing grants and, indeed, any funding. 

Ironically, the team of five at Enzum consists of all women, except for a male developer. Boryslawska asserts:

“We’ve decided not to apply again—we no longer want to be associated with the organisation after everything that happened.” 

The problem with anonymous assessment

Tanya Aneichyk is the founder at OmicsChart,  a computational cancer biology startup revolutionising translational cancer research with our proprietary multi-omics cancer biomarker discovery platform. 

She shared similar frustrations with WomenTechEU, asserting:

“Oh, we had a very similar experience with WomenInTechEU! It's incredible how the program that is designed to inspire women is so trashy in their reviews towards women!

The first time I applied we had a team of 4, and the reviewer called us "one-woman-show", and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of our field (said things like genomics tests will never become a clinical practice haha).”

She told me that her experience with EU-UK grants in general is that it is impossible to get unless the founder comes from the EU academic ecosystem. 

“Just like Mary, most of my academic and professional experience has been outside the EU, so we are not university spin-outs and don't have a professor or academic institution backing us up. 

That closes doors for most, if not all, EU grants. Unfortunately, oftentimes they want to make you believe that it is possible to get, but when you apply, they will use any ridiculous excuse (including that we are all-female teams) to refuse us any funding.”

She also notes that the anonymity of the reviewer really opens the door for the worst in people. 

“Many reviewers stop short of direct insults! We had a reviewer that dug into the legal structures of our startup and questioned whether we were honest about our funding (calling our company "suspicious"), saying that we were clueless and didn't know our field, that we cited a 5-year old publication in our application ...

Those reviews just really feel personal, they don't follow any basics of business communication ethics.”

I contacted Women TechEU and its board members —  Angele Giuliano, Leader, Communication & Dissemination of Women TechEU shared a statement which included the information: 

"Women TechEU programme applies uniform and publicly available criteria to ensure fairness across all applicants. 

These criteria are made clear to participants at the time of submission. Evaluators are adequately briefed in advance, and we note that gender balance is expressly included as one of the sub-criteria for evaluation.”

Giuliano states that independent external experts with demonstrated expertise in relevant technological and business fields assess all eligible applications. 

“These experts operate under confidentiality obligations and receive clear briefings on the programme’s objectives, as well as the evaluation process and criteria.

In line with EU funding principles and our internal procedures, we are not in a position to comment on individual applications or evaluator comments. Applicants may, however, submit an appeal as described in our guidelines, where they believe a procedural error has occurred and adversely affected their application. 

Please note that the judgements of experts cannot be contested through the appeal process, unless a factual or procedural error can be demonstrated.

In such cases, a re-evaluation may be considered, subject to review of the appeal. Appeals are assessed with due diligence to ensure procedural compliance and integrity.” 

"Mistakes were clearly made"

I spoke to someone from the European agencies involved in WomenTechEU who wished to remain anonymous. They shared with me that, "this specific feedback wasn't for them, but it was apparently somebody else's.

"They got a message from us saying, sorry, there's been a mistake. It's been, you know, it's, you got the wrong one. Here's the right one.“

What I saw was someone saying, 'Listen, there was a mistake in the evaluation text that was sent out.' And yes, that did happen — which is strange, I agree.

But with 800 applications, mistakes can happen. And in this case, the text the applicant received wasn’t the correct one. It wasn't even the same text used in the final evaluation.

Their criticism is that a specific sentence was taken out of context, and they were sent the wrong version. That’s a valid concern, of course. Mistakes were clearly made in this case.”

According to Sophie Winwood, CEO of unlock VC (formerly known as WVC:E),  this is just another example of initiatives falling into ‘tick box’ activity — rather than really seeing the huge potential and value supporting female founders presents. 

“This is just another example in a long line, including the disaster last year’s Innovate UK disaster where they decided to only award half of its promised 50 £75K grants to female founded companies — causing absolute uproar in the ecosystem and leading them to reversing the decision to save face. 

We need an ecosystem that fully believes in female founders and their incredible potential, rather than just pretending to. 

We’ve seen several VC funds see the opportunity in backing female founders, such as Auxxo, Fund F and Revaia, and we need to see more real commitments like this.”

A familiar pattern in the funding ecosystem

For many startups, the issue is bigger than a grant. According to Boryslawska, the founders have faced sexism in many forms, including awkward or inappropriate comments from VCs, “but we didn’t expect this kind of behaviour from an EU-funded program.”

Enzum’s founders have been explicitly told by multiple VCs that to fundraise or sell in Germany — a key market for energy startups — they need a male, German co-founder. 

“One said, “You need a German male co-founder to be taken seriously.” It’s been a recurring theme.”

Enzum is currently piloting with a tech contract signed with a customer. Boryslawska admits that it's still early days “Things move slowly in this sector. Even contracts that were supposed to start this month have now been pushed back to next year. That’s why grant funding would’ve helped—it would’ve taken some of the financial pressure off.”

My contact close to the program emphasised that overall satisfaction remains high, with 90 per cent of participants reporting very positive feedback in the most recent survey. While each call now receives around 800 applications and only about 40 can be funded, the general response to the initiative has been described as overwhelmingly supportive.

They acknowledged that €75,000 may not seem like a large amount, but noted that the program offers more than just funding—participants also receive mentoring and access to valuable support services. However, they also recognised concerns around the application process, admitting that it can be lengthy and bureaucratic due to checks and balances imposed by both the consortium and EU member states.

"No one is being forced to apply. But we’re fully aware that the process is long and includes a lot of bureaucracy. Much of that stems from the checks and balances imposed by ourselves and by the member states that fund the program. Can that be improved? Absolutely.

However, we must also consider the risks of cutting corners. It’s clear the current system isn’t ideal, and we acknowledge that. Still, we’re committed to making it better."

Women-led high-impact startups

Some of WomenTechEU’s successful recipients from recent cohorts: 

• RYA-Purification Technologies (Portugal)
  Led by Mara Freire, this biotech startup focuses on developing immunoglobulin Y (IgY) therapies to combat antimicrobial resistance. Their project, Ymmune, aims to advance pre-clinical trials for these therapies. 

• Bright Day Graphene (Sweden)
  Founded by Malin Alpsten and Anna Carlsson, the company produces high-quality graphene from biomass for use in energy storage and other applications. 

• Splastica (Italy)
  Co-founded by Emanuela Gatto, Splastica develops biodegradable and compostable materials derived from milk scaps, offering sustainable alternatives to traditional plastics.

• Vividye (Sweden)
  Led by Johanna Nissén Karlsson, Vividye creates removable textile prints to promote circularity in the fashion industry, allowing garments to be reused more effectively. 

• Safehear (France)
  Co-founded by Héléna Jérôme, Safehear developed "Louis," a smart earplug designed for industrial environments, enabling clear communication while protecting hearing.

• IENAI SPACE (Spain)
  Co-founded by Sara Correyero, IENAI SPACE develops electric propulsion systems for nano and micro satellites, providing end-to-end solutions for in-space mobility.