Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
Here’s what I’ve learned from over a decade advising, navigating and building businesses across some of the most complex markets in the world: The real risk is rarely what’s visible; it’s what’s missing. Not the numbers in the spreadsheet, but the name that wasn’t on the invite list. Not the strategy in the deck, but the question nobody thought to ask.
Inclusion has become a popular headline, a word we nod to in pitch decks and panels. But in practice, it remains under-implemented where it matters most: in who gets funded, who sits at the table, who conducts due diligence and who gets listened to in strategy sessions.
The cost of that oversight is not theoretical. It is measurable: missed market insight, failed market entry, underperformance in diverse consumer bases and deals built on incomplete context. In other words, a structurally flawed foundation for growth.
Related: Why Diverse Leadership Is a Competitive Advantage — and How Women Can Lead the Shift
Exclusion is expensive
Every leader, investor and boardroom decision-maker has blind spots. I have it. That’s human. We talk about what makes a strong founder: ambition, vision and execution. We rarely ask where they are standing. Are they solving a problem they’ve lived? Are they close enough to the people they serve to see the whole picture?
Inclusion is not about charity or fairness. It’s about accuracy. When you exclude regional expertise, local founders or diverse leadership, you miss the very signals that determine whether a deal succeeds. I have watched well-capitalized ventures fail in emerging markets because the only people in the room were external consultants with no lived connection to the terrain. They had the capital, but not the context.
The risk we don’t quantify
We measure downside risk by market conditions, regulatory hurdles and customer acquisition costs. We rarely ask who was missing when we made this decision. Whose insight would have changed this deal?
As an international lawyer, advisor and entrepreneur, I have led due diligence processes on everything from major infrastructure bids to startup fundraises. In every case, the question of who gets consulted is as important as what gets audited. Inclusion becomes a form of risk management, not an HR initiative.
Related: Getting Funding as a Minority-Owned Business Shouldn’t Be a Far-Fetched Dream. Here’s How This CEO is Making Public Capital More Available to All.
The investor’s blind spot
We claim to back disruptive ideas, but the real disruption is often ignored, solutions coming from outside traditional networks. Women founders in underserved markets building scalable businesses. Local entrepreneurs with community-rooted traction. People solving problems they’ve lived. Quiet operators reshaping industries on the ground.
We reward polish. We fund confidence. But we miss something bigger — proximity. The most undervalued trait in deal-making today is proximity — proximity to the problem, the market and the people being served. We over-index on pitch fluency and underweight contextual fluency. We reward those who can speak the language of investors, but overlook those who speak the language of the communities they serve.
The blind spot? Too many investors still treat inclusion as a social checkbox, rather than a strategic advantage. In opaque or volatile markets, where data is incomplete and relationships matter, a founder’s proximity is not a liability; it’s leverage. When investors fail to see this, they don’t just exclude people. They exclude upside.
The strongest investors are evolving. They know how to read beyond the numbers. They’re not just evaluating execution, they’re assessing depth. Inclusion is about better data, better insight and better decisions. It’s not a PR move, it’s a performance edge.
Rewriting the playbook
If inclusion feels like a nice-to-have, it’s because we’re still viewing it from the top down. What if instead, we treated it as a strategic necessity? Imagine due diligence that factors in representation, not as a gesture, but as a governance mechanism. Imagine a risk matrix that quantifies groupthink.
This isn’t theoretical. Funds are starting to integrate inclusion into their operational models, not just in who they invest in, but who advises them, who reviews their pipelines and how they train partners to evaluate value through broader lenses.
Related: Your Diversity Statement Isn’t Enough — Here’s What You Need to Do as a Leader to Drive Real Change
From optics to outcomes
We’re past the point where inclusion is about headlines. In high-stakes businesses, it’s about outcomes. Companies that outperform are not only diverse in identity, but in insight. They draw from a richer range of perspectives and are less likely to miss critical data because they design systems that look beyond sameness.
The most successful leaders I’ve worked with — the ones who really move markets — share one trait: curiosity. They don’t assume they’ve got it all figured out; they build rooms full of people who can challenge their blind spots. If you’re making high-stakes decisions, whether as an investor, a policymaker or a founder, and the room looks just like you, you’re already exposed.
The future of serious business is not just inclusive. It’s integrated. It understands that who is in the room changes what gets built. So here’s the question I’d leave you with:
What are you not seeing? And who do you need to invite in to help you see it?
Here’s what I’ve learned from over a decade advising, navigating and building businesses across some of the most complex markets in the world: The real risk is rarely what’s visible; it’s what’s missing. Not the numbers in the spreadsheet, but the name that wasn’t on the invite list. Not the strategy in the deck, but the question nobody thought to ask.
Inclusion has become a popular headline, a word we nod to in pitch decks and panels. But in practice, it remains under-implemented where it matters most: in who gets funded, who sits at the table, who conducts due diligence and who gets listened to in strategy sessions.
The cost of that oversight is not theoretical. It is measurable: missed market insight, failed market entry, underperformance in diverse consumer bases and deals built on incomplete context. In other words, a structurally flawed foundation for growth.
The rest of this article is locked.
Join Entrepreneur+ today for access.
