Neurodivergent founders, economic hardship and who gets the chance to build a business
June 2026
June took me to two very different but closely connected events: the launch of the Maple Review at the House of Lords and the launch of new research into neurodivergent entrepreneurship at Ironmongers' Hall.
Both events explored entrepreneurship through the experiences of people who are too often missing from traditional conversations about business. They also left me thinking about a question we do not ask often enough: when somebody creates their own way of working, how much is driven by opportunity and how much is a response to systems that have not worked for them?
At the beginning of June, I attended the House of Lords launch of the Maple Review's final report, Exclusion and Enterprise: Entrepreneurship, Poverty and Breaking Down Barriers.
The Review brought together evidence from more than 600 entrepreneurs who had experienced economic hardship, alongside focus groups and submissions from organisations working across the UK. Its findings challenged the idea that business success is determined by ambition, resilience and the quality of an idea alone.
Some people begin with savings, assets, established networks and the reassurance that one setback will not threaten their home or their family's security. Others begin without a financial cushion. When one unexpected cost can destabilise an entire business, taking a risk means something very different.
We can sometimes talk too casually about entrepreneurial risk, as though everybody is taking the same leap from the same starting point. For founders who have experienced poverty or economic insecurity, stability may need to come before growth. That does not mean they lack ambition. It means they are building under very different conditions.
Later in June, I attended the launch of Neurodivergent Entrepreneurship in the UK, developed by the Lilac Centre and Small Business Britain with support from Lloyds Bank and eBay.
The report draws on a national survey of 629 neurodivergent founders. Among those surveyed, 76% said they had started a business so they could work in a way that suited them, whilst 53% cited difficulty fitting into traditional workplaces.
Those figures are striking, but they make sense. Many workplaces are still designed around narrow assumptions about how people communicate, organise themselves, cope with sensory environments and demonstrate their abilities. Recruitment can reward confidence in an interview rather than the ability to do the job. Working cultures may depend on unclear instructions, frequent interruptions, constant changes of priority or unwritten social expectations.
Starting a business can offer something traditional employment has not: the freedom to choose how, when and where you work; to create an environment around your needs; and to build a career around your strengths and interests.
For many neurodivergent founders, that freedom is transformative. It is important, though, to distinguish between entrepreneurship as a positive choice and entrepreneurship as the only door that has remained open.
People should not have to create an entirely new workplace simply because existing workplaces have not made room for them.
Self-employment can remove some employment barriers, but it introduces another set of systems. Founders must navigate tax, banking, finance, procurement, contracts, networking, marketing and business support, often without the administrative help available within a larger organisation.
The neurodivergent entrepreneurship report describes the cognitive load created by complicated forms, inaccessible finance processes, rigid communication and unclear information. It found that 61% of respondents had avoided starting or scaling a business idea because of systemic or personal barriers related to being neurodivergent.
A brilliant business idea can be lost because somebody cannot navigate an unnecessarily complicated application, attend a fast-paced networking event or present their business in one preferred format. That is not a lack of entrepreneurial ability. It is a failure of design.
The report recommends neurodivergent-aware business support, reform of Access to Work for self-employed people, clearer and more accessible routes to finance, investment in peer-led communities and recognition of AI and digital tools as reasonable adjustments.
None of these changes requires us to lower standards. They allow people to demonstrate their ideas and abilities without first having to overcome barriers that add no value to the process.
The Maple Review and the neurodivergent entrepreneurship research explore different experiences, but their conclusions overlap. Systems often assume that founders have unlimited time, energy, confidence and financial security. Many do not.
A neurodivergent founder may also be navigating economic hardship, caring responsibilities, inaccessible employment, delayed support and the exhaustion that can come from years of trying to work within environments that do not suit them. These experiences cannot always be separated into neat categories.
This is why inclusive business support must be shaped by lived experience. Flexibility, clear communication, different ways to engage, written follow-up and ongoing rather than one-off support can all make entrepreneurship more accessible. Kindness matters too. Being met with curiosity and understanding, rather than judgement, can change whether somebody feels able to ask for help or pursue an opportunity.
Supporting neurodivergent entrepreneurship must not become an excuse for failing to change conventional workplaces. We need both.
Neurodivergent people should be able to pursue employment without having to hide their needs or struggle through avoidable barriers. Those who want to build a business should be able to access finance, advice, networks and support without first proving they can conform to systems designed for somebody else.
Entrepreneurship can be creative, liberating and full of possibility. It should be a supported choice, not a consolation prize for people the world of work has excluded.
That is what stayed with me after these two events. Talent and ambition are everywhere. Opportunity, security and access are not. If we want a more inclusive economy, our task is not to ask people to become more resilient in the face of poor systems. It is to build better systems around them.
Further reading