G20 performance on gender equality
Gender inequality persists, and below-average G20 compliance highlights the need for stronger, politically binding commitments and clear institutional accountability
Expectations for achievements on gender equality are high for the 2024 G20 Rio Summit, given the formation of a new G20 Working Group on Empowerment of Women to support the summit’s three priorities and the G20 women’s ministerial meeting.
Deliberation
G20 leaders first addressed gender equality at their 2009 London Summit, with 155 words (3%) in their communiqué. Since their 2010 Seoul Summit, where it took 177 words (1%), their attention slowly, but irregularly, increased in size and scope. It dropped in 2011 to a low of 52 words (0.4%), then rose in 2012 to 231 words (2%). It surged in 2013 to 1,015 words (4%) but dropped in 2014 to 305 words (3%). Then came a sustained rise to 1,235 words (14%) in 2015, 1,199 words (8%) in 2016 and a spike of 4,836 words (14%) in 2017. In 2018, it plunged to 676 words (8%), but rose significantly in 2019 to 1,153 (23%) – the highest portion at any summit. It plunged again in 2021 to 686 words (12%) but rose slightly in 2022 to 1,510 (16%), only to fall again in 2022 to 790 words (8%). It remained steady in 2023 at 928 words (9%).
Decisions
From 2008 to 2021, the G20 made 113 core commitments and 47 related commitments on gender equality, for a combined 160. The first came in London in 2009, with 1% of the total commitments. The next two (2%) came in 2012 and an additional four (2%) in 2014. The 2015 summit made no core commitments but produced four (2%) related ones. The 2016 summit also made no core commitments but made eight (4%) gender-related commitments. Standing out was the strong surge in 2017, with a record 30 core commitments and 14 related ones (8%). The 2018 summit made only seven (7%) core gender commitments. This rose in 2019 to 12, with an additional four related ones (11%). The 2020 summit made one related and eight core commitments (8%). The 2021 summit had 17 core and four related commitments (9%). The 2022 summit made 11 core and six related commitments (8%). The 2023 summit made 22 core and two related commitments (5%).
At the start, G20 gender commitments focused on increasing female labour force participation and improving workplace conditions. This continued through to 2015, with a slight expansion to women entrepreneurs and farmers and later to digital skills development and education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, to increase female participation in those sectors. In 2017 and 2018, the G20 committed to ending gender-based violence. From 2020 to 2022, the G20 recognised the disproportionate impact of the Covid-19 crisis on women and committed to ensuring that it would not widen existing inequalities and undermine the progress of recent decades. In 2023, the focus expanded to include gender equality in the digital economy and women’s participation in climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Compliance
G20 members averaged 61% compliance with the 29 core gender and gender-related commitments assessed by the G20 Research Group – much lower than the overall 71% average. The highest compliance came with the 2020 commitments at 89% and with the 2018 ones at 73%. The lowest compliance came with the 2013 commitments at 33% and the 2009 London ones at 48%. In recent years, compliance was low, at 52% for 2021 and 55% for 2022. By May 2024, compliance with the 2023 New Delhi Summit commitments had jumped to 70%.
Overall, the highest compliers were Canada at 88%, the European Union at 87% and the United Kingdom at 80%. The lowest compliers were Indonesia, Mexico and Russia, all at 41%.
Causes and corrections
From 2009 to 2022 several potential causes of compliance stand out. Higher G20 compliance, of about 13%, came from summits where a higher percentage of the communiqué and its commitments were
on gender and related issues.
The core gender equality commitments averaged higher compliance, at 65%, than the gender-related ones at only 55%. The gender commitments with the highest compliance focused on women’s economic empowerment and ensuring that the pandemic did not widen existing gender gaps. Commitments with the lowest compliance focused on women and girls’ education in STEM, unpaid care work and gender-based violence.
Commitments with a highly politically binding verb and thus a high degree of obligation averaged 66%, and those witha lower degree averaged only 51%.
Several catalysts embedded in the commitment text provide direction for implementation but have little effect on compliance. There was no difference in compliance with the nine assessed commitments with at least one catalyst and the other 19, as both averaged 61%. But commitments with higher compliance contained a specific reference to an institutional body and self-monitoring
for implementation.
Conclusion
G20 leaders at the Rio Summit should thus make more gender conclusions and commitments, emphasise core gender commitments, use highly binding verbs, and institutional bodies and self-monitoring of implementation as commitment catalysts.
