Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy


G20 Summits |  G20 Ministerials |  G20 Analysis |  Search |  About the G20 Research Group
[English]  [Français]  [Deutsch]  [Italiano]  [Portuguesa]  [Japanese]  [Chinese]  [Korean]  [Indonesian]

Trinity College in the University of Toronto

G20 Information Centre
provided by the G20 Research Group


T20 Recommendations Realized: 2016 Hangzhou Summit

Julia Tops and Angela Min Yi Hou, G20 Research Group
October 25, 2019
(revised to specify the T20 Chair's Statement, November 2, 2019)

Executive Summary

This report on the Think 20 (T20) recommendations realized identifies the impact of the policy recommendations that the T20 and its global network of think tanks made to the Group of 20 (G20) leaders for their Hangzhou Summit, which took place on 4-5 September 2016. This report first matches the 22 recommendations contained in the T20 Chair's Statement across seven issue areas to the 211 collective, precise, future-oriented and politically binding commitments made by the G20 leaders in Hangzhou (T20 2016).

Of these 22 recommendations, 19 (86%) either partially or fully matched, and thus realized, with the leaders' commitments made at the Hangzhou Summit. The highest recommendation-commitment matches were on labour and unemployment, reform of international financial institutions (IFIs), development and infrastructure, each with a 100% match. Trade followed with an 80% match, and macroeconomic policy and financial regulation with a 75% match.

Yet it is ultimately of little value if these T20 recommendations are realized by G20 leaders as commitments in their summit communiqué but do not lead to real results through effective implementation when the leaders return home after the summit ends. To predict the impact of the matched commitments on compliance, an analysis of the assessed priority commitments from the 2016 Hangzhou Summit was conducted. It first matched the 19 2016 T20 recommendations to the 29 Hangzhou priority commitments assessed for G20 members' compliance by the G20 Research Group.

This study found that 10 assessed Hangzhou commitments fully matched one or more of the 2016 T20 recommendations. These matches were on the issue areas of macroeconomic policy, information and communication technologies and the digital economy, IFI reform, financial regulation, development, and trade. The weighted average of compliance of these 10 commitments was a high 86%. No Hangzhou commitments were partially matched. The 19 commitments assessed for compliance that did not match any recommendation averaged a compliance rate of only 64%, or 22% lower than those that matched.

This finding suggests that the G20's highest compliance with its assessed priority commitments from Hangzhou came with the commitments that had the full weight of a T20 recommendation backing them.

This 2016 T20 Recommendations Realized Report makes several contributions. First, and most immediately, it provides evidence to encourage think tanks already involved in the T20 process and those not yet involved to increase or initiate their involvement, on the grounds that such investment appears to influence an important centre of global governance. Second, it helps build an analytical and empirical foundation for the T20 to adjust its process to enhance its influence on the G20 summit and the effectiveness of the G20 summit. Third, it tests the hope expressed by some scholars that the G20 provides a valuable forum for a diverse array of transnational actors to exercise influence. Fourth, it contributes to a growing data set to identify how the G20 governors themselves can improve their compliance with their summit commitments through the selective use of proven, low-cost accountability measures that they control.

Introduction

This Think 20 (T20) Recommendations Realized Report identifies the impact of the policy recommendations that the T20 and its global network of think tanks made to the Group of 20 (G20) leaders at their Hangzhou Summit, which took place on 4-5 September 2016. The report matches the 22 priority T20 recommendations made across five thematic areas to the 211 collective, precise, future-oriented, politically binding G20 commitments made at Hangzhou, using a method pioneered by the University of Toronto's Global Governance Program and first applied to summits on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) convened in 2007, 2011 and 2014 (Kirton et al. 2016). The current simplified version gives each of the 22 recommendations a score on a three-point scale to track the degree of the match. A score of −1 indicates no match, a score of 0 indicates a partial match and a score of +1 indicates a full match with one or more Hangzhou commitment (see Appendix A).

This report finds that 19 (86%) of the 22 T20 priority recommendations made were either partially or fully realized in the Hangzhou commitments (see Appendix B). Seventeen were fully realized and two were partially realized.

In 2016, the T20 made the most recommendations on the trade, totalling five recommendations in this issue area. This was followed, in turn, by financial regulation, macroeconomic policy and development with four respectively; reform of international financial institutions (IFIs) and labour and employment both with two; and infrastructure with one.

The highest recommendation-commitments match for Hangzhou came in labour and employment, IFI reform, development and infrastructure, each with a 100% match. They were followed in turn by trade with an 80% match, and financial regulation and macroeconomic policy with a 75% match. There were no no-match issue areas between the T20 recommendation-commitments and the G20 Hangzhou commitments.

This pattern corresponds fairly well with the G20's overall compliance by subject. It was highest on infrastructure at 98%, followed by macroeconomic policy at 79%, financial regulation at 76%, labour and employment at 75%, IFI reform at 68%, and development and trade at 66% each. The overall compliance average across the aforementioned issue areas was 75%.

Recommendations Made

The T20 made 22 priority recommendations to G20 leaders in the lead-up to the Hangzhou Summit, as identified in its overall report on July 30, 2016 (T20 2016).

The highest number of recommendations was in the thematic area of trade with five. Next came four recommendations each on macroeconomic policy, financial regulation and development. Two recommendations were on labour and unemployment and on IFI reform. One was on infrastructure.

Trade

On trade, the T20 made five recommendations. Two of these centred on international trade and international investment. One concerned invigorating global trade. To this end, the T20 recommended that the G20 maintain the central role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in global trade cooperation. The T20 also recommended strengthened coordination on multilateral and regional trade rules.

Macroeconomic Policy, Financial Regulation and Development

On macroeconomic policy, financial regulation and development, the T20 made four priority recommendations in each. For macroeconomic policy, the T20 recommended that G20 leaders promote global economic growth potential, make innovation the key driver of sustained economic growth, accelerate the development of the green economy and strengthen macroeconomic policy coordination. On financial regulation, the T20 further recommended that the G20 strive to enhance finance crisis prevention and management, promote global tax cooperation, and improve financial regulation alongside global financial governance. Under the theme of development, the T20 recommended that the G20 promote inclusive and sustainable development, broadly speaking and specifically in the context of underdeveloped countries and regions. Furthermore, the T20 called upon G20 leaders to strengthen the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and improve the international system of development financing.

Labour and Unemployment and Reform of International Financial Institutions

Labour and unemployment and IFI reform had two recommendations. For labour and unemployment, the T20 recommended the creation of more and higher quality jobs, and called upon G20 leaders to put structural reforms at the core of long-term growth strategies. The T20 also made recommendations to further improve the governance structure of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, and specifically upgrade special drawing rights (SDRs) in the international monetary system for IFI reform.

Infrastructure

On building infrastructure, the T20 made one priority recommendation — to promote infrastructure investment through the G20.

Recommendations Realized

Of the 22 priority recommendations, 19 (86%) were either fully or partially realized in the 211 commitments made at the Hangzhou Summit (see Appendix C).

The highest proportion of recommendations realized came in the areas of development (four recommendations made), labour and employment (two recommendations made), IFI reform (two recommendations made), and infrastructure (one recommendation made). In these four issue areas, 100% of the recommendations made were partially or fully realized in the Hangzhou commitments.

Next came the issue area of trade with 80%, or four of the five, recommendations realized. Then came the macroeconomic policy and financial regulation with 75%, or three of the four, recommendations realized.

Trade and Development

On trade, three out of the five recommendations were fully realized in the Hangzhou commitments. Of the remaining two recommendations, one recommendation was partially realized. On development, three out of the four recommendations were fully realized in the Hangzhou commitments, with the last recommendation partially realized.

The three fully realized trade recommendations suggested that the G20 facilitate cooperation in international trade and investment, invigorate global trade, and highlight the central role of the WTO. The three fully realized development recommendations focused on sustainable development with an inclusive approach, implementation of the 2030 Agenda, and assistance for underdeveloped countries and regions.

On development, one of the four recommendations made was partially realized. This recommendation suggested that the G20 "improve the international system of development financing." On trade, one recommendation, pertaining to strengthened coordination on multilateral and regional trade rules, was partially realized.

Macroeconomic Policy and Financial Regulation

On macroeconomic policy and financial regulation, three of four recommendations made were fully realized in each of the two issue areas, i.e., a total of six recommendations were realized across the two issue areas.

The fully realized macroeconomic recommendations stated that the G20 should enhance global economic growth potential, emphasize innovation as a central driver of sustained growth and strengthen macroeconomic policy coordination. The fully realized recommendations pertaining to financial regulation suggested that the G20 leaders improve global financial governance and regulation, and strengthen cooperation in global tax governance.

Labour and Employment and International Financial Institution Reform

In the two issue areas of labour and employment and IFI reform, all recommendations were fully realized. Two recommendations were made in each issue area. The two recommendations made on labour and employment suggested that G20 leaders place structural reforms at the centre of long-term growth strategies, while improving the quality and quantity of employment opportunities. The two recommendations on IFI reform encouraged the G20 to upgrade the role of SDRs in the international monetary system and reform the governance structures of the IMF and World Bank.

Infrastructure

On infrastructure, one recommendation was made by the T20. It was fully realized by corresponding G20 commitments made at the Hangzhou Summit. This recommendation seeks to promote infrastructure investment.

Results

It is ultimately of little value if the T20 recommendations are realized by G20 leaders as commitments in their summit communiqué but then do not lead to real results through effective implementation by these leaders and their governments when they return home after the summit ends. This section thus reviews how well the G20 has complied with its past commitments that matched the subjects that the 2016 T20 made recommendations on.

G20 Overall Compliance: 2008–2016

Overall, on the subjects the T20 2016 made recommendations on, the G20's strongest compliance since 2008 has come on infrastructure, at 98% (see Appendix B). Next is compliance with macroeconomic policy commitments at 79%. This is followed closely by financial regulation at 76% and labour and employment at 75%. In the middle are IFI reform at 68% and development and trade at 66%.

The G20's overall compliance across these seven equally weighted issue areas is 75%.

Compliance with Matched Hangzhou Commitments

The 2016 T20 made 22 recommendations to the 2016 G20 Hangzhou Summit. Of these 22 recommendations 19, or 86%, matched the 211 commitments made at Hangzhou. Seventeen, on macroeconomic policy, labour and unemployment, financial regulation, trade, infrastructure, IFI reform and development, were fully matched. Two, on trade and development, were partially matched. Three, on financial regulation, trade and macroeconomic policy, were not matched.

The G20 Research Group assessed 29 Hangzhou priority commitments for compliance. Of these, 10 commitments fully matched one or more of the 2016 T20 recommendations (see Appendix D). These were on macroeconomic policy, information and communication technology and digital economy, international financial institution reform, financial regulation, development, and trade. The weighted average of compliance of these 10 commitments was a high 86%. The 19 commitments with no matched T20 recommendations averaged compliance of only 64%, or 22% lower than the T20-backed ones.

Zero commitments were partially matched.

This suggests that the G20's highest compliance with its assessed priority commitments from Hangzhou came with the commitments that had the full weight of civil society, and particularly a T20 recommendation, preceding them.

Conclusion

There are several factors to consider in determining how well the G20 complied with its priority commitments from the Hangzhou Summit. One key factor worth further research is the quality or ambition of the commitments made, and, in particular, how well civil society's recommendations are listened to and what impact that has on compliance. In 2016, there was a smaller number of recommendations made by the T20 for the G20 Hangzhou Summit, with only 22 recommendations made. Furthermore, the recommendations made were mostly vaguely phrased with minimal specificity across all issue areas covered. Fewer, more general recommendations could lead to higher matched commitments and higher compliance with them.

Further research here would signal to the G20 to align its commitments more closely with non-state actors to improve its compliance and ensure that it is governing global issues in a way that capitalizes on the expertise of those working on these issues daily. Such research would further the recent recommendation of Sören Hilbrich and Jakob Schwab (2018, p. 8) that "if given sufficient access to the relevant information, Engagement Groups such as the T20 (Think 20) could play a vital role in providing credible and informed independent evaluation of G20 policies." According to Hilbrich and Schwab, the T20 plays a constructive role in informing policy implementation and accompanying the summit process from an academic perspective. Further analysis from Domenico Lombardi and Samantha St. Amand shows that by providing accountability and policy recommendations, the T20 can realize its purpose of providing analytical support to G20 decision-making processes given its "analytical capacity and diversity, [and ability to] identify governance gaps and suggest new policy solutions that take into account political restraints." Thus, the T20 plays a central and supportive role in magnifying the G20's strengths as a plurilateral summit institution, and enhancing its accountability and compliance through its recommendations.

References

Hilbrich, Sören and Jakob Schwab (2018). "Towards a More Accountable G20? Accountability Mechanisms of the G20 and the New Challenges Posed to Them by the 2030 Agenda," International Organisations Research Journal 13(4): 7–28. https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2018-04-01.

Kirton, John, Julia Kulik and Caroline Bracht (2016). "Report on Objective Six: Impact of the Port of Spain Summit on Regional and Global Institutions." Global Health Diplomacy Program: University of Toronto.

Kirton, John, W. Andy Knight, C. James Hospedales, et al. (2018). "Regional and Global Impacts of the 2007 Port of Spain Declaration on Non-communicable Diseases." Pan American Journal on Public Health, December. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2018.194.

Lombardi, Domenico and Samantha St. Amand (2015) "Prioritizing International Monetary and Financial Cooperation for the G20 Views from the T20," Centre for International Governance Innovation. https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/pb_no.63_web.pdf.

T20 (2016). "T20 Chair's Statement," Beijing, July 30. http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/t20/2016-T20-Chairs_Summary.html.

T20 (2017). "20 Solution Proposals for the G20 from the T20 Engagement Group." Kiel Institute for the World Economy and German Development Institute. http://www.t20germany.org/2017/06/15/20-solutions-g20/.

[back to top]


Appendix A: Recommendations Realized Methodology

Recommendations Realized Reports identify the impact of policy recommendations made to G7 and G20 leaders by formal and informal engagement groups and others in the lead-up to their annual summits. They do so by matching the recommendations made by a given institution/organization/individual, such as the Think 20 (T20), with the collective, precise, future-oriented, politically binding commitments the summit leaders make in their official documents. The assessment uses a method pioneered by the University of Toronto's Global Governance Program, first applied to summits on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) convened in 2007, 2011 and 2014 (Kirton et al. 2014).

It has since been applied to recommendations made in the G7/20 "background books" published by the G7 Research Group and G20 Research Group, the Young Entrepreneurs' Alliance and now by the Think 20.

In the more simplified version employed here, each recommendation made is given a score on a three-point scale. A score of −1 indicates no match with a commitment, a score of 0 indicates a partial match and a score of +1 indicates a full match. The following explanation of the assessment of the degree of match can also be applied to scoring commitments, rather than recommendations, on the same three-point scale (i.e., does the leaders' commitment fully, partially or not match with a previous recommendation made?).

Degree of Match

Full Match

In order for a recommendation to receive a score of +1, all components of that recommendation must match with at least one commitment. It is not required that all components of the recommendation are found in a single commitment; a full match can occur if all components of the recommendation are split between more than one commitment.

For example, the 2016 T20's Chair Statement made a recommendation to the G20 ahead of its Hangzhou Summit on 4–5 September 2016 for the G20 to "put structural reforms at the score of long-term growth strategies for all countries."

Parts of this recommendation were realized across several commitments the G20 made at the Hangzhou leaders' summit. These included, but are not limited to:

  1. 2016-39: We endorse the nine priority areas of structural reforms and a set of guiding principles identified in the Agenda to provide high-level and useful guidance to members, while allowing them to account for their specific national circumstances. (Issue-Area: Macroeconomic Policy)
  2. 2016-40: We also support the quantitative framework consisting of a set of indicators, which will be improved over time, to help monitor and assess our efforts and progress with structural reforms and challenges. (Issue-Area: Financial Regulation)
  3. 2016-42: We will ensure that the Enhanced Structural Reform Agenda and the relevant elements of the Blueprint on Innovative Growth are well articulated. (Issue-Area: Financial Regulation)
  4. 2016-171: We will implement and improve over time the Enhanced Structural Reform Agenda…while noting that the choice and design of structural reforms are consistent with countries' economic conditions. (Issue-Area: Financial Regulation)
  5. 2016-192: We will look for opportunities to continue to improve the G20's enhanced structural reform agenda. (Issue-Area: Macroeconomic Policy)

Partial Match

In order for a recommendation to receive a score of 0 for a partial match only one or some of its components need to be realized in any number of commitments. For example, the 2016 T20's Chair Statement recommended that the G20 "strengthen coordination on multilateral and regional trade rules." This recommendation was partially realized in the following commitment:

  1. 2016-96: We commit to working to ensure our bilateral and regional trade agreements complement the multilateral trading system, and are open, transparent, inclusive and WTO-consistent. (Trade)

Here, the G20 addressed bilateral and regional trade agreements, but it did not specifically commit to measures that improve "coordination" as mentioned in the recommendation. It also did not discuss multilateral trade rules, nor were these two components addressed in any other Hangzhou commitment.

No Match

In order for a recommendation to receive a score of −1 for a non-match, either no part of the recommendation matches any commitment made or there is no match with the core focus of the recommendation. For example, the 2016 T20's Chair Statement recommended that the G20 "accelerate the development of green economy." Although the G20 at Hangzhou made 31 macroeconomic commitments, none of these referenced the green economy.

Conclusion

A more complex matching analysis, developed and used for the NCD summit evaluation, also charts the breadth of the match, according to the number of commitments containing all the components in the recommendation. Further work could measure the novelty of the match, i.e., whether the matched recommendation repeated one previously made by the same source; reverse influence, i.e., whether the recommendation largely repeated a commitment made by a previous summit; and distinctiveness of match, i.e., whether the matched recommendation was also made by other engagement groups or individuals.

[back to top]


Appendix B: T20 Recommendations Made and Realized by Issue

Issue Number of T20 recommendations made Number of recommendations realized in G20 summit commitments Degree of match (average score) G20 overall compliance with similar commitments 2008–2016
Macroeconomic policy 4 3 (75%) +0.5 (75%) +0.58 (79%)
Labour and employment 2 2 (100%) +1 (100%) +0.49 (75%)
Financial regulation 4 3 (75%) +0.5 (75%) +0.51 (76%)
International financial institution reform 2 2 (100%) +1 (100%) +0.36 (68%)
Trade 5 4 (80%) +0.4 (70%) +0.31 (66%)
Development 4 4 (100%) +0.75 (88%) +0.32 (66%)
Infrastructure 1 1 (100%) +1 (100%) 0.95 (98%)
Total/Average 22 19 (86%) +0.74 (87%) 0.50 (75%)

Notes:

This table shows the number of priority recommendations made by the T20 in 2016 to the G20 in the lead-up to their Hangzhou Summit on 4–5 September 2016, by thematic area. It shows the number and percent of recommendations realized in the official documents produced in the leaders' name at the summit. It also shows the average score for the degree of match or the average score of the recommendations realized.

For example, on the issue area of macroeconomic policy, three (75%) of the four recommendations made were realized in the commitments made at the Hangzhou Summit. None was partially realized, which would be assessed with a score of 0 each. Three were fully realized with a score of +1. One was not realized, scoring −1. Thus the average of these four scores is +0.5 (75%). The percentage is calculated by adding 1 to the average score, dividing by 2 and multiplying by 100 (e.g., 1.5/2 = 0.75 x 100 = 75%).

Degree of match: If all components of the recommendation were realized in one or more commitments it received a score of +1 for a full match; If at least one, but not all, components of the commitment matched with one or more commitments it received a score of 0 for a partial match; if no components of the recommendation matched any commitment it received a score of −1 for no match.

[back to top]


Appendix C: T20 Recommendations Made

All recommendations identified in the 2016 T20 Chair Statement published on 30 July 2016 are found in the third paragraph, the preamble of which states: "The world economy is still in recovery. However, with the accumulating economic risks, there is greater possibility of a trend of further deceleration of economic growth. Thus we suggest:"

Fully Realized Recommendations (n = 17)

Thus we suggest [the G20] enhance global economic growth potential. (Macroeconomic Policy)

Thus we suggest [the G20] put structural reforms at the core of long−term growth strategies for all countries. (Labour and Employment)

Thus we suggest [the G20] make innovation the key driver of sustained economic growth. (Macroeconomic Policy)

Thus we suggest [the G20] create more and higher quality jobs. (Labour and Employment)

Thus we suggest [the G20] improve global financial governance. (Financial Regulation)

Thus we suggest [the G20] strengthen macroeconomic policy coordination. (Macroeconomic Policy)

Thus we suggest [the G20] improve continuously financial regulation. (Financial Regulation)

Thus we suggest [the G20] upgrade the role of the SDR in the international monetary system. (IFI Reform)

Thus we suggest [the G20] further improve the governance structure of the IMF and the World Bank. (IFI Reform)

Thus we suggest [the G20] strengthen global tax cooperation. (Financial Regulation)

Thus we suggest [the G20] facilitate international trade and investment cooperation. (Trade)

Thus we suggest [the G20] invigorate global trade. (Trade)

Thus we suggest [the G20] maintain the central role of the WTO in global trade cooperation. (Trade)

Thus we suggest [the G20] promote inclusive and sustainable development. (Development)

Thus we suggest [the G20] strengthen implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (Development)

Thus we suggest [the G20] promote infrastructure investment. (Infrastructure)

Thus we suggest [the G20] make great efforts in helping underdeveloped countries and regions develop on a sustainable basis. (Development)

Partially Realized Commitments (N = 2)

Thus we suggest [the G20] strengthen coordination on multilateral and regional trade rules (Trade)

Thus we suggest [the G20] improve the international system of development financing. (Development)

Not Realized (N = 3)

Thus we suggest [the G20] enhance financial crisis prevention and management. (Financial Regulation)

Thus we suggest [the G20] set up a unified international investment system. (Trade)

Thus we suggest [the G20] accelerate the development of green economy. (Macroeconomic Policy)

[back to top]


Appendix D: G20 Hangzhou Priority Commitments by Degree of Match with 2016 T20 Recommendations

The G20 Research Group assessed 29 Hangzhou priority commitments for compliance. Of the commitments assessed, 10 commitments fully matched with an identified recommendation in the 2016 T20 Chair's Statement. No commitments were partially matched, and 19 commitments were not matched with any recommendations made.

Fully Matched Commitments

N = 10

2016-6: We are determined to use all policy tools — monetary, fiscal and structural — individually and collectively to achieve our goal of strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth. (Macroeconomic Policy)

2016-18: To achieve innovation-driven growth and the creation of innovative ecosystems, we support dialogue and cooperation on innovation, which covers a wide range of domains with science and technology innovation at its core. (ICT and Digital Economy)

2016-53: To this end, we remain committed to finalizing remaining critical elements of the regulatory framework and to the timely, full and consistent implementation of the agreed financial sector reform agenda, including Basel III and the total-loss-absorbing-capacity (TLAC) standard as well as effective cross-border resolution regimes. (IFI Reform)

2016-63: We will continue our support for international tax cooperation to achieve a globally fair and modern international tax system and to foster growth, including advancing on-going cooperation on base erosion and profits shifting (BEPS). (Financial Regulation)

2016-64: [We will continue our support for international tax cooperation to achieve a globally fair and modern international tax system and to foster growth, including advancing] tax capacity-building of developing countries and tax policies to promote growth and tax certainty. (Development)

2016-98: We extend our commitments to standstill and rollback of protectionist measures till the end of 2018, reaffirm our determination to deliver on them. (Trade)

2016-100: We endorse the G20 Strategy for Global Trade Growth, under which the G20 will lead by example to lower trade costs. (Trade)

2016-104: [We endorse the G20 Strategy for Global Trade Growth, under which the G20 will lead by example to] promote e-commerce development. (Trade)

2016-105: We endorse the G20 Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking, which will help foster an open, transparent and conductive global policy environment for investment. (Trade)

2016-111: We commit to contributing to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda by setting an example through bold, transformative collective and intended national actions in a wide range of areas. (Development)

Partially Matched Commitments

N = 0

Non-Matched Commitments

N = 19

2016-23: We support efforts to promote voluntary knowledge diffusion and technology transfer on mutually agreed terms and conditions. (ICT/Digitalization)

2016-76: We endorse the 2017-2018 G20 Anti-Corruption Action Plan to improve public and private sector transparency and integrity, implementing our stance of zero tolerance against corruption, zero loopholes in our institutions and zero barriers in our actions. (Crime and Corruption)

2016-79: We encourage members to significantly improve energy efficiency based on the specific needs and the national circumstances of each member. (Energy)

2016-83: We also reaffirm our commitment to rationalize and phase-out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption over the medium term, recognizing the need to support the poor. (Energy)

2016-107: We support policies that encourage firms of all sizes, in particular women and youth entrepreneurs, women-led firms and SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises], to take full advantage of global value chains, and that encourage greater participation, value addition and upward mobility in GVCs by developing countries, particularly low-income countries. (Macroeconomic Policy)

2016-120: We support the effective implementation of the G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. (Financial Regulation)

2016-121: [We support the effective implementation of the] G20/OECD High-level Principles on SME Financing. (Microeconomics)

2016-125: We will further develop the G20 employment plans in 2017 to address these commitments and monitor progress in a systemic and transparent manner in achieving the G20 goals especially on youth employment and female labour participation. (Labour and Employment)

2016-129: We reiterate our commitment to sustainable development and strong and effective support and actions to address climate change. (Climate Change)

2016-131: We commit to complete our respective domestic procedures in order to join the Paris Agreement as soon as our national procedures allow. (Climate Change)

2016-132: The G20 will continue to address forced displacement in 2017 with a view to developing concrete actions. (Migration and Refugees)

2016-136: In confronting terrorism, we remain committed to effectively exchanging information, freezing terrorist assets, and criminalizing terrorist financing. (Terrorism)

2016-138: In this context, we will promote prudent use of antibiotics and take into consideration huge challenges of affordability and access of antimicrobials and their impact on public health. (Health)

2016-159: [We are committed to unleashing the potential of the digital economy by providing favorable conditions for its development, including reaffirming the goal of ensuring the next 1.5 billion people are connected and have meaningful access to the Internet by 2020 in accordance with the Connect 2020 agenda, through] supporting entrepreneurship. (ICT/Digitalization)

2016-160: [We are committed to unleashing the potential of the digital economy by providing favorable conditions for its development, including reaffirming the goal of ensuring the next 1.5 billion people are connected and have meaningful access to the Internet by 2020 in accordance with the Connect 2020 agenda, through] promoting digital transformation. (ICT/Digitalization)

2016-161: We are committed to unleashing the potential of the digital economy by providing favorable conditions for its development, including reaffirming the goal of ensuring the next 1.5 billion people are connected and have meaningful access to the Internet by 2020 in accordance with the Connect 2020 agenda, through] encouraging e-commerce cooperation. (ICT/Digitalization)

2016-163: [We are committed to unleashing the potential of the digital economy by providing favorable conditions for its development, including reaffirming the goal of ensuring the next 1.5 billion people are connected and have meaningful access to the Internet by 2020 in accordance with the Connect 2020 agenda, through] promoting policies that support MSMEs to use the ICT technology more effectively. (ICT/Digitalization)

2016-173: We commit to enhance the partnership between public and private sectors as appropriate…while recognizing the importance of the business sector among others in realizing the benefits of innovation and entrepreneurship. (Microeconomics)

2016-188: The role of youth and women in innovation and entrepreneurship for job creation should be highlighted and supported, and we commit to take steps to expand access to quality skills training and education. (Labour and Employment)

[back to top]


This Information System is provided by the University of Toronto Library
and the G20 Research Group at the University of Toronto.
Please send comments to: g20@utoronto.ca
This page was last updated November 02, 2019 .

All contents copyright © 2019. University of Toronto unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved.