- Originally known as “The Annual Meeting of the New Champions” takes place every year in China.
- Today known as ‘Summer Davos’ or ‘AMNC’, the meeting takes place in the summer months and has a focus on entrepreneurship and innovation.
- The meeting alternates between the Chinese cities of Tianjin and Dalian and is closely connected to their economic expansion.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) is most famously associated with its annual gathering in Davos, Switzerland—an event often criticized as a symbol of elite detachment, where billionaires and heads of state pontificate about global inequality in luxury surroundings. Less conspicuous, but increasingly influential, is its June counterpart in China: the so-called “Summer Davos.”
Officially named the Annual Meeting of the New Champions (AMNC), this event markets itself as a forward-looking forum for innovation, sustainability, and “inclusive” growth. In reality, it functions as a stage-managed convergence of political power, corporate ambition, and technological evangelism. Its host country, China, strategically leverages the platform to position itself as both a global innovation hub and a responsible stakeholder in shaping the future—despite mounting concerns about digital authoritarianism, surveillance capitalism, and human rights abuses.
Since its founding in 2007, Summer Davos has focused heavily on the role of fast-growing enterprises “new champions”, particularly those at the forefront of AI, biotechnology, green energy, and digital finance. But the glowing rhetoric around these technologies often obscures deeper risks. The Forum rarely interrogates how these innovations might reinforce monopolistic control, exacerbate surveillance, displace labour, or entrench asymmetrical power structures between tech giants and citizens.
Moreover, the language of “digital transformation” and “Fourth Industrial Revolution”—hallmarks of WEF discourse—frequently serves as a smokescreen. Behind the buzzwords lies a vision of progress that privileges capital, data extraction, and algorithmic governance, while sidelining democratic accountability and labor rights. In this context, the AMNC can be seen less as a space for critical dialogue and more as a legitimizing ritual for techno-solutionism—where optimism about the future is used to depoliticize the present.
Rather than genuinely questioning the trajectory of global capitalism or technological development, Summer Davos tends to reaffirm a tightly controlled narrative: one in which innovation is inherently virtuous, markets are self-correcting, and the future belongs to those who can monetize disruption the fastest.
Here are six things to know about Summer Davos—but the more pressing question remains: is this event shaping a better future, or simply scripting a more polished version of the status quo?
1. Davos vs. “Summer Davos”: A Division of Influence
While both the original Davos meeting in Switzerland and its June counterpart in China—known as “Summer Davos”—are branded as pillars of global cooperation, they serve distinctly strategic functions within the World Economic Forum’s ecosystem of elite consensus-building.
The Davos gathering in Switzerland is framed as a space to assess the coming year’s geopolitical and economic challenges. It brings together heads of state, CEOs, central bankers, and NGO leaders—though critics argue it largely recycles conventional wisdom under the guise of fresh dialogue. It is often criticized for being more about visibility and influence than accountability or action.
In contrast, the Annual Meeting of the New Champions (AMNC), or Summer Davos, is less about reacting to the present and more about shaping the narrative of the future, albeit through a narrow techno-centric lens. It projects a longer, 10-year outlook, with a heavy emphasis on innovation, digital transformation, and emerging market growth. While this may seem forward-thinking, the framing often veers into uncritical futurism, celebrating disruption and scalability without acknowledging the social costs of technological upheaval or the ethical implications of AI and data capitalism.
Summer Davos positions itself as the playground for “next-generation enterprises” and “technology pioneers,” particularly in the context of developing economies and Asia’s rising influence. But this positioning also reflects a deeper geopolitical calculation: it provides China with a powerful narrative vehicle to promote its techno-economic model on a global stage, under the veneer of multilateral dialogue.
The WEF’s division between its winter and summer summits, then, is not merely logistical; it represents a bifurcation of global priorities. Davos remains the domain of legacy power and short-term crisis management. Summer Davos is the laboratory for a highly curated version of the future—one increasingly shaped by Big Tech, state capitalism, and algorithmic governance, with limited space for democratic contestation or critical engagement.
Related reading:
- Day 1 at ‘Summer Davos’ 2025: AI, trade and the global economy in focus
- Day 2 at ‘Summer Davos’ 2025: Asia’s growth and future of energy in the spotlight
- AMNC25: Who’s coming and what to expect at this year’s ‘Summer Davos’
2. Summer Davos: Origins and Strategic Intent
The Annual Meeting of the New Champions—commonly known as “Summer Davos”—is often presented as a natural extension of the World Economic Forum’s legacy. While the original Davos meeting began in 1971 as the European Management Symposium and rebranded as the WEF in 1987, the establishment of Summer Davos in 2007 marked a deliberate pivot: not just toward the future of business, but toward a new axis of global influence.
Launched through a close partnership with the People’s Republic of China—and with enthusiastic backing from the Chinese Premier—Summer Davos has always been more than a business forum. It is a highly choreographed platform that reinforces China’s strategic role in shaping global economic discourse, particularly in areas like AI, green energy, and digital infrastructure, where Chinese firms and policymakers seek to dominate emerging standards.
The rhetoric surrounding the event, emphasizing “new champions,” “sustainable growth,” and “collaborative solutions”, conceals a more complex reality. Many of the so-called “innovative” business models showcased at AMNC are deeply entwined with surveillance technologies, platform monopolies, or venture capital interests that prioritize scale over social value. Meanwhile, the Forum’s emphasis on “diverse stakeholders” rarely includes grassroots voices, labour representatives, or critics of techno-authoritarianism.
Far from being a neutral site of global cooperation, the evolution of Summer Davos reflects how multilateral institutions like the WEF increasingly function as legitimizing agents for state-capitalist models and elite-driven innovation. Its inaugural meeting in Dalian was framed as a milestone for international dialogue, but critics argue that the format has since hardened into a repetitive showcase for corporate ambition and political soft power.
Now entering its 16th iteration, the 2025 meeting underscores the WEF’s ongoing attempt to appear globally inclusive and future-oriented—while largely avoiding hard questions about power concentration, political repression, or the environmental and human toll of unchecked technological development.
AMNC brings together more than 1,500 global leaders.
Image: World Economic Forum
3. A Timeline of “Achievements” or a Case Study in Elitists Self-Promotion?
The World Economic Forum’s official timeline of Summer Davos reads like a polished highlight reel of progress: global investment, technological breakthroughs, and diplomatic success stories. But a closer look reveals a more troubling pattern, one in which the Forum acts less as a neutral convener of dialogue and more as a facilitator of corporate opportunism and state-led image management.
These so-called “achievements” often serve to mask deeper tensions: between local and global interests, innovation and exploitation, openness and control.
2006
The WEF opens an office in Beijing, an early signal of its strategic alignment with China’s ascent. Coastal cities are invited to bid for the right to host a new “global growth” summit, effectively turning a multilateral event into a domestic contest for prestige and foreign investment. Far from being an open process, this reflects how the Forum integrates itself into authoritarian economic planning, offering global legitimacy in exchange for access and visibility.
2007
The first Summer Davos is held in Dalian. Coinciding with Intel’s $2.5 billion investment in a new chip factory, Chinese state media quickly labels this surge in foreign attention “the Davos Effect.” But what’s really being celebrated is not inclusive economic growth, it’s the ability of global elites to converge around capital flows, under the imprimatur of “innovation,” while sidestepping scrutiny of how such investments actually affect local labour, equity, or sustainability.
2008
As global markets reel from the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the Forum convenes its second AMNC under the upbeat theme “The Next Wave of Growth.” The disconnect is glaring. While millions face economic uncertainty, Summer Davos presses on with business as usual, amplifying the illusion that elite networks can remain insulated from systemic failure. The simultaneous announcement of Airbus’s joint venture in Tianjin reveals another layer: global capital using WEF platforms to solidify deals with minimal accountability, often benefiting from opaque state incentives.
2010
Tianjin’s industrial growth hits a staggering 24.8%, with media coining the phrase “Tianjin Speed” to celebrate the city’s economic acceleration. ORIX Group announces its expansion in Dalian—crediting conversations held at Summer Davos. But critics argue these developments are less about inclusive growth and more about the WEF serving as a reputational broker: connecting multinational capital with cities eager to rebrand themselves, even if that means glossing over labour exploitation, displacement, or environmental degradation.
2011
Citibank returns to Dalian after nearly a century, with local officials hailing it as a victory for financial modernization. Yet, such expansions often come with deregulation, debt exposure, and gentrification, issues rarely examined at WEF events, where the financial sector is celebrated as a partner in progress rather than a potential source of instability or inequality.
2013
Chinese Premier Li Keqiang uses the AMNC stage to make his diplomatic debut, touting globalization and multilateralism. But this symbolic embrace of “global village” rhetoric contrasts sharply with China’s tightening domestic controls and the export of surveillance technology abroad. The WEF offers a sanitized stage for such contradictions, rarely challenging its most powerful participants—especially when they’re also its most strategic partners.
2014
Premier Li introduces the “Mass Entrepreneurship and Innovation” policy at AMNC, positioning China as a startup nation. But behind the branding lies a harsh reality: top-down “innovation” under one-party rule, where digital startups thrive only when aligned with state priorities and where dissenting or independent innovators face systemic barriers. The Forum’s celebration of such initiatives often ignores these structural realities in favour of upbeat, investor-friendly narratives.
Rethinking the Narrative
What the Forum calls “achievements” are often symbolic victories for global capital and state soft power, not necessarily gains for ordinary people, workers, or democratic values. Summer Davos functions less as a site for critical dialogue and more as a PR engine for techno-optimism, market liberalization, and political legitimacy. Its timeline of milestones is not a story of progress, but a cautionary tale about how international platforms can be co-opted to reinforce power, rather than challenge it.
4. Core topics addressed at Summer Davos
The Annual Meeting of the New Champions consistently addresses forward-looking themes crucial to global economic development.
The 2024 meeting, themed ‘Next Frontiers for Growth‘, focused on six major topics: A New Global Economy; China and the World; Entrepreneurship in the Age of AI; New Frontiers for Industries; Investing in People; and Connecting Climate, Nature and Energy.
In 2025, the topics are: Deciphering the World Economy; Outlook on China; Industries Disrupted; Investing in People and Planet; New Energy and Materials.
Past meetings have covered themes such as ‘Driving Growth through Sustainability’ (2010), highlighting the Forum’s long-standing focus on responsible economic advancement.
The rapid advancement of Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), has been a recurring focus, emphasizing their transformative potential for production and society – as well as the need for governance.
‘Summer Davos’ takes place in China every year.
Image: World Economic Forum
5. Why Does Summer Davos Rotate Between Two Chinese Cities? Strategic Optics Over Substance
At first glance, the decision to alternate Summer Davos between Dalian and Tianjin might seem like a practical effort to spread economic opportunity and showcase regional diversity. But a more critical reading reveals a deeper purpose: reinforcing China’s preferred narrative of modernization, state-led innovation, and international openness—while using the prestige of the World Economic Forum to legitimize and amplify that story.
The initial bidding process that led to Dalian’s selection in 2007 was less about fostering global inclusion and more about aligning the Forum with China’s emerging soft power strategy. By alternating between two strategically significant cities—Dalian, a key port in the northeast, and Tianjin, a state-favored industrial hub near Beijing—the WEF is not just rotating venues, it’s participating in a carefully choreographed display of state-managed economic success.
Dalian is consistently presented as a window into international trade and maritime commerce, while Tianjin is promoted as a symbol of China’s industrial modernization and urban development. But the emphasis on these curated strengths often masks deeper systemic issues—such as environmental degradation, labor exploitation, and the suppression of civil society—that are rarely, if ever, addressed within the sanitized environment of Summer Davos.
The cities’ transformation into platforms for global business summits is not neutral. They are strategically selected zones where the Chinese government can tightly control the optics, security, and messaging. The influx of Fortune 500 companies—such as Intel—after the inaugural AMNC is touted as evidence of success, but it also raises questions about the Forum’s role in facilitating a form of elite economic diplomacy that privileges corporate access over public accountability.
The 2025 meeting, held in Tianjin at the sprawling 1.4 million square meter National Convention and Exhibition Centre (NCEC), is emblematic of this spectacle-driven approach. The size of the venue mirrors the ambition of the event: to signal China’s scale, stability, and centrality in the global economy. But this show of strength often comes at the cost of engaging with real challenges—ranging from economic inequality and worker rights to growing surveillance and state control over innovation.
The alternating city model, then, is not simply about regional inclusivity. It reflects a transactional partnership between the WEF and the Chinese state—one that trades symbolic legitimacy for access, and uses global platforms to burnish national narratives. What remains under-examined is whether such a tightly managed format can ever foster the kind of open, pluralistic dialogue that the Forum claims to champion.
6. The New Champions Community: Innovation or Elite Cooptation?
The World Economic Forum brands the New Champions community as a network of mid-sized, “mission-driven” companies leveraging AI and innovation for growth and social impact. Yet, this framing obscures a harsher truth: the community is an elitist club (and YOU aren’t in it) curated to reinforce market-centric solutions that align with WEF-approved narratives, rather than to disrupt entrenched power structures.
Originating in 2006 as a showcase for “high-growth” companies, many from Asia, particularly China—the New Champions are selected based on revenue size, technological adoption, and adherence to the Forum’s vision. This vetting process filters out dissenting voices or businesses challenging capitalist orthodoxies, privileging instead firms adept at navigating global finance and regulatory favour.
Membership offers privileged access to elite networks and resources, but it also enforces conformity to a narrow definition of “impact” and “innovation” that often serves branding more than substantive social change. The New Champions are less pioneers of transformation and more managers of a system designed to perpetuate economic concentration under the guise of sustainability.
In essence, the New Champions community exemplifies how the WEF perpetuates elitist hegemony, masking market-driven interests as progressive innovation while sidelining genuine alternatives.
