G20 Research Group G20 Information Centre
provided by the G20 Research Group 		University of Toronto

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

 

Analysis

The Substantial Performance of the G20’s 2025 Johannesburg Summit

John Kirton, G20 Research Group, November 24, 2025, 17h00 SAST
(Original version published November 23, 2025)

Introduction

The G20’s 20th regular summit, held in Johannesburg, South Africa, on 22–23 November 2025, produced a substantial performance. It thus ranks 11th among the 20 regular G20 summits that have now been held and shares the average B performance of the previous 19 (see Appendix A).

Despite the early and increasing opposition of US president Donald Trump, and the ultimate boycott of his government, all the other 20 leaders or the governments of the G20 members attended, participated, and issued their consensus declaration at the very start of the summit and its first session on the opening day. To be sure, only 67% of G20 members sent their leaders, the lowest portion ever. But the 20 member governments present and participating produced the declaration of almost 11,000 words, which was close to the average of all the 19 previous summits of just over 12,000 words. The G20 South Africa Summit: Leaders’ Declaration contained 195 collective, precise, future-oriented politically binding commitments, above the G20 summit’s overall average of 171. And the US government ended its complete boycott by agreeing to have the presidency handover ceremony from South Africa for 2025 to the US for 2026, if at the junior foreign ministry level and in the week after the summit ended. Moreover, the G20’s future was agreed by all and its presidency publicly declared for the further two years, and the final two years of the Trump presidency – the United Kingdom in 2027 and Korea in 2028. Thus, for the Johannesburg Summit, the G20 faced its most severe stress test from within or without and both survived and thrived.

Dimensions of Performance

The substantial performance of the Johannesburg Summit is further seen in a more detailed look at the six major dimensions of such summit’s performance.

Domestic Political Management

On the first dimension of domestic political management, performance on the first indicator of leaders’ attendance was very and unprecedentedly low (see Appendix B. It was the first full boycott by a member and its entire government, by the United States – the most powerful member and a member of the G20’s governing troika, because it will hold the presidency of the G20 the following year. Indeed, US plans for its 2027 summit have already been made public very early and in unusual detail. The US boycott led directly to the absence of Argentina’s president for the first time, because the current incumbent, Javier Milei, is highly ideologically aligned with Trump. Also missing were Russian president Vladimir Putin, Chinese president Xi Jinping, Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and, at the very last minute, Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto.

However, on the second indicator, domestic political approval in the media, performance was very strong, especially in the host country. On Monday, November 24, the day after the summit, the Star in Johannesburg headlined “Türkiye’s Erdogan blasts Israel over Gaza, praises SA’s [South Africa's] global role.” The Business Reporter headlined “G20 Summit puts poor countries at the centre of Global Discourse.” Business Day headlined “SA clinches surprise G20 consensus deal.”

On Sunday, the summit’s second day, the Sunday Times headlined “bloody nose for Trump.” The Independent headlined “SA sends U.S. packing amid boycott drama.” The Business Times headlined “G20 tackles Africa’s debt trap.” On Saturday, the summit’s first day, the Saturday Star headlined “Call for action on global inequalities.” On Friday, the day before the summit, the Star headlined “US makes U-turn on G20 boycott at eleventh hour.”

The editorials were more reserved. The day after the summit, the Star said “G20: curated prosperity amidst lived poverty.” The Star’s Business Report said “South Africa’s G20 moment exposes deep cracks at home and abroad.” Business Day said “G20 unity is a win but the real test starts now.” The day before, the Sunday Times said “G20 boycott suggests US is on the wrong side of history.” And the Independent’s columnists said “Trump’s bullying is failing to undermine SA’s global stature” and “Global leaders firmly behind SA at historic African G20.”

Deliberation

In the summit’s most memorable moment, the South African presidency issued the attending members’ consensus declaration at the very start of the first session on the opening day of the Johannesburg Summit. Given Trump’s opposition, this made the summit’s public deliberation, recorded in the outcome documents, performance very strong. The declaration’s content was solid. The 20 member governments produced a declaration of 10,940 words, which was close to the 19 previous summits’ overall average of just over 12,000 words. It was also a significant expansion of the second draft of the Johannesburg Declaration produced after October 16, which had only 7,770 words. This performance could be stronger if additional outcome documents, on specific subjects such as critical minerals are produced.

However, in the private deliberation among leaders, performance was small. For the first time, the first of the three sessions of the summit was livestreamed, often including the audio of the leaders’ speeches. And since so many non-leaders of the many members and the many guests gave such speeches, the session resembled the opening of the United Nations General Assembly far more than the normal G7 summit.  

Direction Setting

Performance on the third dimension, principled and normative direction setting, was significant. On the G20’s distinctive foundational missions of preserving financial stability and making globalization work for all, performance through affirmations of the latter was very strong. This was due to the emphasis on development, equality and inclusiveness throughout the text.

Decision Making

On the fourth dimension of decision making, through public, collective, precise, future-oriented, politically binding commitments, performance was significant (see Appendix C). The declaration’s 195 commitments were well above the G20 summit’s overall average of 171, and the second version of the draft declaration, which had 136. However, 70% of Johannesburg's commitments were weak and unambitious, and only 30% were strong and ambitious. Leaders and their substitutes largely promised to continue doing what had been done before, and as much as before, rather than doing new things and more than they had before.

The declaration’s 195 commitments were led by those on development with 19, crime and corruption with 18, food security with 14, gender equality with 13 and culture and tourism also with 13, climate change and the digital economy with 10 each, and health and energy with 9 each. Then, with eight each, were disasters, education, trade and investment, macroeconomics, and financial regulation. Next, critical minerals, the environment and regional security each had six.

The commitments were thus dominated by the development and related priorities of South Africa, Africa and the Global South. Those at the hard economic core of the earliest summits hosted in the US and Global North only appeared with trade and investment in 12th place. Also noteworthy were the six commitments on regional security, with almost all of them strong, and addressed the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and elsewhere.

Delivery

On the fifth dimension – the delivery of these decisions before the next summit – performance is likely to be small. The United States has historically low compliance of only 27% with the priority commitments assessed from the G20’s Rio Summit in November 2024, with Trump as president for most of the compliance monitoring period. Very few 2025 commitments contain obligations to monitor and report on implementation, and very few are on subjects that Trump prefers. However, the overall compliance with the Rio commitments averaged 70%, close to the G20’s overall average of 71%, so all the other members could again do more to compensate for a US doing far less.

Development of Global Governance

On the sixth dimension – the institutional development of global governance inside and outside the G20 – performance was substantial, despite Trump’s dislike of South Africa’s membership in the G20 and of most multilateral organizations.

Inside the G20, performance was strong. By identifying the presidency for the next three years, the Johannesburg leaders ensured that the G20 and its summits would continue until Trump was no longer US president. The declaration also made several approving references to – and commitments on – other G20 institutions, platforms and principles.

Outside the G20, performance was small. The leaders’ declaration contained some references to supporting bodies such as the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization, but very few commitments and none to increase funding to them to replace the money that Trump has cut.

However, the Johannesburg Summit inspired the replenishment summit of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to be held the day before in the same city. It sought to raise $14 billion and raised over $11 billion. Donald Trump’s US contributed $4.6 billion, the largest sum by far of any member. As the Global Fund is dedicated first to ending HIV/AIDs, and as this infectious disease is the largest killer of South Africans, Donald Trump’s money did much for South Africa, even if his presence and his words did not.

[back to top]

Appendix A: G20 Summit Performance, 2008–2025 ↩

Summit Grade Domestic political management Deliberation Direction setting Decisions Delivery Development of global governance
Internal External Engagement groups
Attendance # compliments % members complimented # days # documents # words Stability Inclusion Democracy Liberty #
commitments		 Compliance Compliance # Assessed # references Spread # references Spread # references Spread
2008 A− 100% 0 0% 2 2 3,567 16 2 10 2 95 +0.53 77% 10 0 4 39 11 0 0
2009a A 100% 1 5% 2 3 6,155 29 6 9 0 129 +0,20 60% 10 12 4 120 27 0 0
2009b A− 100% 0 0% 2 2 9,257 11 21 28 1 128 +0.37 69% 17 47 4 115 26 0 0
2010c A− 90% 8 15% 2 5 11,078 47 32 11 1 61 +0.40 70% 16 71 4 164 27 0 0
2010d B 95% 5 15% 2 5 15,776 66 36 18 4 153 +0.34 67% 42 99 4 237 31 0 0
2011 B 95% 11 35% 2 3 14,107 42 8 22 0 282 +0.41 71% 26 59 4 247 27 4 2
2012 A− 95% 6 15% 2 2 12,682 43 23 31 3 180 +0.54 77% 21 65 4 138 20 7 2
2013 A 90% 15 55% 2 11 28,766 73 108 15 3 281 +0.34 67% 27 190 4 237 27 9 5
2014 B 90% 10 40% 2 5 9,111 10 12 1 0 205 +0.42 71% 29 39 4 42 12 0 0
2015 B 90% 0 0% 2 6 5,983 13 22 0 2 198 +0.42 71% 24 42 4 54 11 8 6
2016 B+ 95% 7 25% 2 4 16,004 11 29 34 5 213 +0.40 70% 34 179 4 223 19 14 6
2017 B+ 95% 0 0 2 10 34,746 42 61 2 11 529 +0.29 65% 43 54 6 307 19    
2018 B− 90% 0 0 2 2 13,515 23 53 7 2 128 +0.56 78% 25 20 5 24 15    
2019 B 95% 0 0 2 2 6,623 13 16 7 6 143 +0.56 74% 25 56 5 54 17    
2020 B− 95% 3 10% 2 1 5,697 13 20 6 6 107 +0.55 78% 27 30 6 58 16    
2021 B+ 95% 4 10% 3 1 10,060 5 27 2 0 225 +0.41 71% 25 31 8 70 25    
2022 B 85% 4 10% 2 1 10,402 27 43 3 1 223 +0.58 79% 15 40 5 91 28    
2023 B+ 85% 4 10% 2 1 14,290 18 33 12 4 242 +0.90 85% 09 34 13 115 31    
2024 B− 95% 7 24% 2 1 9,095 14 41     174 +0.35 67% 13 20 14 99 39    
Total   N/A 66   32 64 193,067 452 449 188 34 3,248 - - 425 933.0 60. 2001 289 42.0 21.0
Average (20) B 90% 4.4 0.1 2.0 4.2 12,871 30.1 29.9 14.5 2.6 171 +0.41 71%  22 66.6 4.3 142.9 20.6 3.8 1.9
2025 B 67%     2 11,000         195                  

Notes: a) London Summit, b) Pittsburgh Summit, c) Toronto Summit, d) Seoul Summit. N/A = not applicable or available.
Very Strong = A or 85, Strong = A- or 80, Significant = B+ or 78, Substantial = B or 75, Solid = B- or 70, Small = C or 65
The 2020 and 2021 summits include virtual attendance, due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The 2023 summit lacked the leaders of Russia, China and Mexico (whose leader has not attended since 2019).
Compliance average is by the 18 years, not by the individual commitments, and excluded the score for 2024.
The 2025 scores are projected as of November 15, 2025.

[back to top]

Appendix B: G20 Johannesburg Summit Participants ↩

Bold indicates head of state or government, or head of international organization

Guest Leaders (20)

* indicates participation in the sherpa process

International Organizations (24)

[back to top]

Appendix C: 2025 G20 Johannesburg Summit Commitments ↩

195 commitments in the G20 South Africa Summit: Leaders’ Declaration as identified by Brittaney Warren, November 23, 2025

Subject Number of commitments Percentage of commitments
Development 19 10%
Crime and corruption 18 9%
Food security 14 7%
Gender 13 7%
Culture and tourism 13 7%
Climate change 10 5%
Digital economy 10 5%
Health 9 5%
Energy 9 5%
Climate change – Disaster resilience and response 8 4%
Education 8 4%
Trade and investment 8 4%
Macroeconomics 8 4%
Financial regulation 8 4%
Development - critical minerals 6 3%
Environment 6 3%
Regional security 6 3%
Institutional reform 5 3%
International cooperation 4 2%
Taxation 3 2%
Social policy 3 2%
Migration and refugees 3 2%
Science and research 1 1%
Infrastructure 1 1%
Terrorism 1 1%
Labour and employment 1 1%
Total 195 100%

Note: Climate change + climate change disaster resilience and response = 18; development + development critical minerals = 25.

[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 29, 2025

X      Facebook      Instagram      LinkedIn

All contents copyright © 2025. University of Toronto unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved.