CEO Activism Rises as Women Leaders Face Disproportionate Targeting

Shareholder activism campaigns are increasingly focused on CEOs, and new research shows women leaders are being targeted at disproportionately high rates.

A report from The Conference Board, produced in collaboration with Russell Reynolds Associates and the Rutgers Center for Corporate Law and Governance, finds that between 2018 and 2025, activist campaigns in the Russell 3000 that explicitly criticized CEO leadership or called for removal focused on women far more often than their representation would suggest. Among CEO-targeted campaigns during that period, 16 percent were aimed at women, even though women accounted for only about 6 percent of Russell 3000 CEOs on average.

The findings are based on public disclosures filed through Oct. 31, 2025, with data provided by ESGAUGE. The report shows that CEO-focused activism has accelerated alongside a broader surge in shareholder campaigns. Activism in the Russell 3000 more than tripled from 2018 levels, peaking at more than 400 campaigns in 2024 before easing to just over 300 in 2025.

Since the pandemic, shareholder activism has intensified amid market volatility, increased scrutiny of leadership performance and heightened attention to ESG-related issues. CEOs have increasingly become direct targets of activist pressure rather than indirect figures in broader governance disputes.

“The CEO often becomes a symbolic focal point, with calls for leadership changes typically tied to broader campaigns for board representation or strategic redirection,” said Brian Campbell, leader of The Conference Board Governance and Sustainability Center.

From 2018 through 2025, activists launched 127 campaigns aimed at ousting or replacing a CEO. The annual number of CEO-focused campaigns rose sharply, from five in 2018 to 39 in 2025.

Women CEOs faced elevated scrutiny throughout the period. In 2025, women made up 8 percent of Russell 3000 CEOs but accounted for 15 percent of activist campaigns explicitly targeting the CEO role. Compared with male CEOs, women were roughly twice as likely to be targeted. Across the full study period, the share of campaigns aimed at women was approximately two and a half times higher than expected based on their overall representation.

The report points to several factors that may help explain the disparity. Prior research suggests female CEOs experience similar dismissal rates regardless of company performance, while male CEOs are less likely to be removed when results are strong. Activists may also perceive women leaders as more open to engagement, a perception rooted in persistent gender stereotypes.

“CEOs are now held directly accountable for missteps, ESG controversies or lagging performance, making rigorous reviews, succession planning and active board engagement essential,” said Matteo Tonello, head of benchmarking and analytics at The Conference Board and a coauthor of the report.

The study also examines how activist tactics and outcomes are evolving. Despite expectations that universal proxy rules introduced in 2022 would favor activists, boards continue to hold the advantage. Of the 57 proxy fight campaigns launched in 2025, only eight proceeded to a shareholder vote. Companies prevailed in five contests, while activists secured three partial gains.

“Institutional support continues to tilt outcomes toward credible incumbents,” said Matteo Gatti, a professor of law at Rutgers Law School. Director qualifications, refreshment practices and sustained engagement remain decisive factors in proxy outcomes.

Exempt solicitations have emerged as a favored activist tool in recent years, allowing investors to influence proxy voting without launching a full solicitation. Filings rose from 109 in 2018 to 380 in 2024 before declining to 239 in 2025, reflecting both the maturation of activist strategies and the overall slowdown in campaign volume.

Most exempt solicitations filed in 2025 supported shareholder proposals. Sixty-eight percent urged support for shareholder proposals, often related to governance or sustainability. Twenty percent opposed management proposals such as director elections or say-on-pay votes, while 9 percent urged votes against shareholder proposals, largely ESG-related measures criticized as politically motivated.

“Activist investors have become far more sophisticated in their communications,” said Umesh Chandra Tiwari, executive director of ESGAUGE. “They now deploy digital storytelling, multimedia campaigns and carefully crafted governance narratives to rally institutional investors and shape public opinion.”