Eva Díaz, founder and CEO of Stem Women Congress, trained as a journalist and built her career at the Col·legi d'Enginyers Industrials de Barcelona, where she spent sixteen years and rose to lead a nine-strong communications department. In 2018, following that chapter, she founded Cooking Communication, a communications agency specialising in engineering, energy, infrastructure, transport, and science. Emerging from one of the agency's corporate social responsibility initiatives, Stem Women Congress was launched in 2019 as a space designed for women and organisations active in STEM to connect, collaborate, and gain visibility as role models. After eight editions in Barcelona, the congress has expanded internationally from Canada – where Díaz has lived for the past five years – and now operates across sixteen countries, uniting a community of more than 10,000 women. The project has earned accolades including the Dona TIC Award in the business category and the Women Change the World Award, championing purposeful technology shaped by a gender perspective so that women's viewpoints are not left out of the future currently being built. Díaz welcomes The New Barcelona Post to the temporary apartment lent to her for the congress in the heart of Plaça de Catalunya. She speaks about women's place in the world and in science, and reflects on everything achieved to date. While she laments how much remains to be done, she insists she will keep being “persistent” – in her own words – and continue fighting for visibility and equal opportunity.
— After several editions of the Stem Women Congress, what is the main structural issue facing women in STEM today?
— It is a multifactorial problem. We have just wrapped up a study in collaboration with the OECD, an organisation that works with education ministries worldwide, comparing countries such as Australia, South Korea, and Finland. It is striking because Finland is a leader in education and Denmark in gender equality, yet both still struggle to get girls into STEM degrees. It is a shared challenge, and we have examined it from multiple angles.
The first factor is that society still fails to see these careers as being for women. The second is the lack of role models. If you have no one around you – not even a man – who has studied engineering or science, you cannot picture yourself in that path and you do not choose it. Around 25 years ago, a study by the UPC showed that every young woman studying engineering had at least one male role model close to her. That illustrates just how vital role models are. Today, social media allows us to amplify them far more widely. The third factor is women's lack of confidence, which we also discussed at the congress on Tuesday. Studies show that when applying for a job, men put themselves forward if they meet 60% of the requirements and take the plunge, whereas women will not apply unless they meet 95% to 100%.
— What can the Stem Women Congress contribute in this regard?
— What we know best: a marketing and communications perspective. To that end, we have developed a technology platform that maps the ecosystem of existing efforts. Whenever we enter a country, we identify every initiative and programme working in STEM or promoting it, and we run an annual survey asking what they are doing. We make all this data publicly available and completely free to download from our website, and we also share it during our congresses. This helps initiatives discover one another: “Look, who else is doing what I am doing? Where can I scale?” It also sparks ideas so that efforts go beyond mere pink-washing – which ultimately amounts to writing a cheque, posing for a photo, and calling it a day. Rather, it encourages action that makes a genuine difference.
— Have those data led to concrete action?
— Yes. In Spain, we saw that nobody was reaching rural areas. Prompted by those findings, we created an initiative called STEM Tour. We approached Volkswagen and explained that we wanted to take a van into rural schools to introduce pupils to what STEM is. They agreed, and we now travel in a brilliant, sleek electric van to schools with just 7, 8, or 10 children. Reaching them can take nearly two days, yet in a single month we reach more than a thousand pupils. We deliver plug-and-play activities that require zero extra preparation time from teachers, who are already stretched thin. Through initiatives like this, we actively seek out where the gaps lie.
— And what gap have you identified now?
— In Spain, there is a major drop-off during the first two years of university. Of the young women who enrol in a STEM degree, 30% drop out because, for various reasons, they feel they do not belong. They are often the only women in class. Even today, some lecturers still hold sexist attitudes, and male peers form a heavily masculine culture. It is true that those who persevere feel fully integrated and have wonderful experiences, yet the problem persists. This year we issued a clear call: anyone looking to take meaningful action should focus on closing this drop-out gap. This sits alongside our congresses and our broader push for visibility.
— If finding female students and workers in STEM is already tough, finding women in senior leadership seems almost impossible. Has the sector made progress in placing more women in positions of power?
— It is improving very slowly, though progress is happening. That said, it is concentrated largely in the Global North. There is a stark divide between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. We also host the Congress in Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, and Peru, and the figures look very different there. In Brazil, for instance, racial barriers compound the difficulty: Black and mixed-race girls still represent only 1% to 2% of those entering these degrees. In Canada, where I live and where we also host the Congress, just 3% of doctors are Black. Those communities have to work far harder to get there. Access to these careers is, first and foremost, a question of role models – that much is clear. Secondly, the barrier is socioeconomic: poverty makes it vastly harder. If you are wealthy and have access to culture, role models, and broader horizons, these paths appear within reach. When you cannot even imagine that world belonging to you, that is the reality you live.
The share of female executives is edging up, yet among founders, only 2% of all venture capital goes to women-led start-ups, even though investments in women deliver markedly higher returns. On average, for every dollar invested in a person's education, the economic return to a country is nine dollars; invest that same dollar in a woman, and the return rises to ten. Another crucial factor is male engagement. Research shows that when male executives have a daughter as their firstborn child, they begin changing how they run companies, because they start thinking about the kind of world they will leave behind for her.
— So is social intervention necessary – measures such as quotas or positive discrimination?
— That brings us back to the ongoing debate over quotas. I believe there comes a point when quotas are necessary to disrupt entrenched behaviours, though they must be temporary and serve strictly as a catalyst. Consider what happened during apartheid, when Black students had to attend white schools. Integration had to be enforced, sometimes with police escorts just to get through the doors. Without forcing the issue, change simply never happens. I think we need a short transitional period with quotas. At the same time, every woman you speak to tells you she does not want quotas – she wants to be there on merit.
— Quotas are often discussed in dismissive terms, aren't they? Does that tie back to what you said earlier about confidence? Can a woman be held back from reaching the top solely because of factors tied to her gender?
— The major turning point in a woman's career comes when she becomes a mother, because that is when the mental load – or the caregiver penalty – sets in. A gender pay gap still persists; depending on the country and sector, it ranges between 3% and 7%. Naturally, couples ask who stays home, who steps back, and who takes leave – and it is still overwhelmingly the woman. In science, this creates an even more vicious cycle. In research, you must produce a set number of publications each year to earn evaluation points. If you take maternity leave, you do not publish that year. And once your publication record dips, you cannot lead a research project and you fall down the ladder. Who secures the funding? Those who never stopped and already held the advantage. Because they keep going, they accumulate even more points in the next funding round. Many of these mechanics go unseen, yet they carry huge consequences.
— You are describing deeply structural issues. Do you have enough leverage to change mechanisms like how research points are awarded?
— Not directly, though an initiative led by female scientists here in Spain took a letter signed by around a thousand women to the Ministry of Science demanding reform. They proposed that when a researcher takes leave, her score be adjusted based on her prior publication track record, or compensated fairly. This highlights another vital lesson for women: if you do not speak up, nobody is telepathic. We cannot sit back waiting to see if someone notices us or grants us recognition. Ask for it, because men certainly do. Want a pay rise? What does a man do? He knocks on the door: Boss, my wife is pregnant, I need a raise. Boss, I want to buy a car and a pay rise would help. Boss, I want to do a master's degree... And what does a woman do? She works, works, and works, hoping someone will notice, value her contribution, and offer a raise. Eventually she burns out and has to move to another company because nobody recognised her worth.
— We have grown up in a man's world. It feels as though shifting these dynamics remains an uphill battle. Perhaps women would do things differently, yet we have to play the game by the existing rules, don't we?
— More and more spaces are changing. A McKinsey & Company report on women and wealth projects that by 2030, for the first time, 40% of global wealth will be held by women – and women invest far more in other women. I believe that will begin turning the flywheel and lead to more women-led companies. When a woman runs a company, she hires more women. These are structural shifts that will gradually reshape the landscape.
— Have you felt supported by public authorities across the 16 countries where you operate?
— It varies by country. Where we arrive with an already established, recognisable brand, the reception is different. Here in Catalonia, for instance, the Generalitat has backed us from day one, consistently, and Barcelona City Council has as well. Whenever we have reached out, we have received a positive response. Could they do far more? Yes, of course they could. At the same time, public budgets are finite, and often it is less about money than about backing, opening doors, and raising visibility. When we won the Dona TIC Award one year, it gave us a tremendous boost. Ultimately, it is that encouraging pat on the back: Keep going, you're doing great work, don't stop.
— Your programme also features male speakers. While the push for equality must involve everyone, not just women, it seems notable to see men speaking at a congress focused on women. Could you walk me through your thinking behind including men in these spaces?
— I always explain that I have a son and a daughter. I do not want him sidelined for being a boy, nor do I want her to have fewer opportunities than her brother. If you look up the definition of feminism in the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, feminism is equal opportunity for all people. You have machismo on one extreme, and on the other its mirror opposite, female chauvinism. Feminism, despite the feminine root of the word, sits squarely in the centre: it stands for equal opportunity between genders.
This is not solely about women. Women remain underrepresented at the top, yet we have never opened doors for ourselves at the expense of other groups. Quite the opposite: we have opened doors so that other minorities can advance too. We cannot achieve this alone. We make up half the population, and we need the other half to recognise the issue, stay aware, open doors, support us, and act as sponsors for women inside companies. Female executives consistently say the same thing: I have had both male and female sponsors who backed me and helped me along the way. Having both men and women on board is vital. In fact, I believe mixed teams perform best. When teams are diverse and bring different perspectives, they deliver superior results – the research proves it.
— In Barcelona's start-up ecosystem, there is a popular saying that one start-up always spawns another. Does the same hold true among women? Is there a genuine support network among female founders, particularly in tech, where they help one another or at least share candid advice?
— I always tell younger generations that you are remarkably fortunate. In the past, there was the queen bee syndrome – where a woman holding power in a male-dominated environment became harsher, more critical, or distant toward female subordinates. Many women of my generation admit we went through our own queen bee phase, simply because the only leadership model we had ever seen for managing and building teams was the masculine one. Today, there is another concept I first heard from Núria Salán, also a pioneering advocate for women in STEM: weaving networks. Women weave networks. That dynamic has improved dramatically. Those networks now exist, and many corporations have established internal women's networks, which has been a radical shift. We are transforming things here – though I must stress that this reflects our local reality. Travel to other countries, and the picture is very different.
Clearly, there is still a great deal to fight for and improve
In Ecuador, for example, we are not even talking about STEM yet. We are talking about girls missing school when they have their period because their parents cannot afford sanitary products and cannot send them to class stained, as it brings shame on the family and the girl, and schools turn them away. We still have plenty to fight for here, yet we are deeply privileged. And those women and girls are watching us, observing how we do things, and that matters enormously to them. When you visit these countries and witness their realities, you realise just how privileged we are. Clearly, there is still a great deal to fight for and improve.
— Have you experienced this contrast up close?
— This summer I had the privilege of collaborating with a Canadian organisation that nurtures young female leaders, and it was extraordinary. They invited me to submit my CV for a government call to bring civil society delegates to the High-Level Political Forum, where nations debate the Sustainable Development Goals. I was fortunate enough to attend the United Nations with the Canadian delegation, and it was fascinating – but also a sobering reality check. Living in the Northern Hemisphere, we take women's rights for granted, yet in many parts of the world they simply do not exist. I recall one debate where it was noted that two million women die every year simply fetching clean water – killed, assaulted, or infected by contaminated supplies. We have a vast amount of work ahead of us.
One of the most rewarding things we do now within our network is connect our ambassadors here online with ambassadors in other countries to exchange knowledge and role models. Above all, women in the Global South look to us. We serve as their reference point, and that, in turn, gives those of us here renewed strength – because after so many years, fatigue can set in.
— It sounds like exhausting work with slow short-term returns, doesn't it?
— As we always say, we wish there were no need for the Stem Women Congress. Yet it remains essential. Our initiatives fall into two pillars: inspiration and career development. Combined, all existing inspiration programmes reach just 2% of girls aged 0 to 16. If we only reach 2% of that age group to explain what STEM is, nobody should be surprised when we lack women in the pipeline. Ultimately, it is a funnel. People call me relentless and say I am always harping on the same theme, but we must keep pushing because the data speak for themselves.
— From an economic standpoint, what do Catalonia and Europe stand to lose if they fail to back women in STEM?
— Above all, talent. Moreover, diverse companies are far more profitable; their financial performance is markedly stronger. Let me share an example given by a European Space Agency astronaut on one of our panels a few years ago. Imagine you are a scientist selected for a European mission to the International Space Station. You arrive in orbit and cannot step outside the spacecraft because the spacesuits were not designed for women – nobody accounted for the space needed for breasts. Was it deliberate? No; simply because no woman had been there before, the suit was never engineered for female anatomy. The exact same thing happens with pharmaceuticals and countless other products. That is why diversity must be embedded in the team from the very moment a technology or product is conceived. It is crucial, particularly in tech.
Here is another example. If he [pointing to photographer Àngel Bravo, present during the interview] and I apply for a mortgage at an online bank, he will receive a higher credit score and better terms than I will, because statistically men earn more and show greater employment stability. That is flawed and must change. When there is a woman behind that code and algorithm, she will insist on addressing the distinction between equality and equity. In other words, if someone cannot reach the shelf, you provide a step so they can – ensuring everyone enjoys the same genuine opportunities.
— What would you say has changed over the past five years, and what would you like to see change over the next five?
— What has changed is that university enrolments in these degrees have risen. What worries me is sliding backwards. Over the past two years, particularly under the current administration in the United States, a broader political shift has prompted many American corporations to dismantle their diversity departments. That has impacted sponsors too: speaking openly about diversity, especially gender diversity, has fallen out of favour. Some sponsors have told me: We will support you, but leave our logo off because it will cause us problems. We have taken a step backwards. It was Simone de Beauvoir who warned that we can never take acquired rights for granted. The smallest shift can strip women of them, which is why we must remain vigilant. We often assume the battle is won, and then something happens – as we are seeing now in the United States – and we lose ground. I hope the midterm elections reverse that tide, though there is even talk of household voting, which would effectively strip women of an independent vote again. Looking elsewhere, in Afghanistan I want girls to be allowed back into school; in Ecuador, I want the issue of period poverty keeping girls out of classrooms resolved. There is so much we can still change.
— Is this rightward shift concerning not only in the United States, given that far-right and hardline neoliberal movements appear to be gaining ground elsewhere too?
— I prefer not to frame this in partisan political terms, because I believe there are feminists in every political party – just as there are chauvinist women in every party, surprising as that may seem. People often assume a left-wing party is automatically progressive and a right-wing one is entirely closed-minded, yet I know people in conservative parties who are remarkably forward-thinking because they have travelled and seen the world. That is why I avoid tying this to party politics. As I said earlier, feminism is a basic right: women must have the same opportunities as men. We are different, yet complementary. I do not have a man's physical strength, and a man cannot conceive a child as a woman can. We are different – neither superior nor inferior, simply complementary. What is indisputable, however, is that we must enjoy the exact same opportunities in work, education, rights, and public services. For me, that is non-negotiable.