The first this question was asked in early 2015, we analyzed the data and concluded that it’s not as simple as saying women CEOs are more susceptible to activist investors. The two dozen women CEOs at the helm of the 500 largest US companies do indeed deal with activist investors at a higher rate, especially when taking into account shorter tenure. But we found multiple explanations for this phenomenon, including a wide range of company-specific developments.

A recent Bloomberg piece notes women CEOs are more vulnerable to activist investors than men based on the fewer anti-takeover defenses at women-led companies, but again, there’s much more at play. Consider that even as hedge fund activism approaches historic highs, companies are continuing to dismantle traditional antitakeover mechanisms — largely in response to investor calls for enhanced accountability.

Today, EY’s Center for Board Matters tracks fewer than 10% of S&P 500 companies as having antitakeover defenses such as classified boards or multiyear poison pills. Similarly, in most cases the antitakeover defenses at women-led companies had already been eliminated (or the decision to eliminate them likely had already occurred) prior to the CEO appointments.

Rather than women CEOs being targeted, the real story is that women CEOs are at the vanguard of sweeping governance changes. Not only are they leading companies with fewer antitakeover devices, but a quick look at our data shows that their companies have more women board leaders and greater board gender diversity. Recent empirical research, too, highlights the connection between women and better performance and less corporate fraud.

In the end, we need more women leaders. We need more women CEOs, senior executives, board leaders and board members. We need to take action now. And we need to work together to accelerate change.