Summary

Representation is improving – women now hold 39% of senior executive roles in European Retail and CPG, a 14 percentage point increase since 2017. But to reach 50/50, we need to understand what is still holding progress back. In groundbreaking new research conducted by LEAD Network and Shape Talent, we uncover the barriers to career advancement for women working in the industry. The findings clearly show this is not due to a lack of individual ambition or ability, but rather, structural, cultural issues rooted in leadership behaviour. The report offers practical insights for leaders committed to tackling this persistent and costly issue.

Solutions Toolkit

In response to the findings of the report, an evidence-based solutions toolkit is available exclusively to LEAD Network Partner Members via our Inclusive Practice Library here. 

Key Findings

Drawing on responses from over 500 employees across Europe, the findings are cover four key themes: 

• Voice: The Silence Tax. Nearly half of all women worry about how they come across in meetings, almost double the rate of men. When so much of your workforce is editing itself before speaking, the organisation is already losing. 

• Value: The Negotiation Penalty. 43.8% of women feel greedy for asking for a pay rise, compared to 23.6% of men. The problem is not that women do not negotiate. It is that negotiating costs them more. 

• Care: The Caregiving Trade-Off. Over a third of women believe pursuing career growth makes them a lesser parent or carer, nearly double the rate of men. This belief is embedded in organisational systems, not personal choice. 

• Career Progression: The Uneven Pathway. Perceived lack of career progression is the strongest predictor of intention to leave. The leader, not ERGs or bias training, has the single biggest impact on creating a culture where everyone can progress.

 

---

 

Conducted by: LEAD Network in Partnership with Shape Talent 

Contributors: 

• Sarah McGowan Strategic Research & Learning Advisor, LEAD Network 
• Alison Wilson Chief Operating Officer, Shape Talent  
• Dr. Priscila Pereira Director of Research and Innovation, Shape Talent 

Methodology and Sample Size

Findings are based on the Shape Talent’s Three Barriers Model®, completed by 535 employees across the LEAD Network. The sample was predominantly female (77%, n = 404), with men comprising 22% (n = 119) and the 12 participants preferred not to disclose their gender. Respondents represented a range of carer statuses, role levels, and functions. To support robust analysis, smaller categories were aggregated into analytically meaningful groups, including Sole/Primary Carers (n = 112) and Joint/Secondary Carers (n = 234), as well as Front Line, Team Lead/Manager (n = 270), and Director+ (n = 137) roles. Disability status was excluded from demographic analysis and reporting, as the number of respondents identifying as having a disability did not meet the minimum threshold for either statistical testing or descriptive reporting.

Responses across 26 sub-barriers were analysed by gender, carer status, role level, and function. A minimum threshold of 30 respondents per group was applied for significance testing; where this threshold was not met, results are reported for context only. Aggregation decisions were made to enable meaningful and statistically robust comparisons, and all findings described as significant were formally tested, with all other patterns clearly labelled as descriptive.

Disaggregated participants profile Barriers to women’s career progression were measured using the Shape Talent’s Three Barriers to Women’s Career Progression Scale (TBWCPS), a scientifically validated instrument assessing barriers across societal (5 items), organisational (15 items), and personal (4 items) domains. Each domain comprises multiple sub-barriers measuring the presence and strength of barriers. The scale demonstrates strong internal reliability across all domains (Cronbach’s a = 0.80 societal; 0.90 organisational; 0.73 personal), with excellent reliability for the overall scale (a = 0.92). All percentage-point differences described as “significant” in this report have been formally tested using two proportion z-tests, with associated p-values and Cohen’s d effect sizes reported. Where findings are described as descriptive only, this is explicitly stated.