When the South American nation of Guyana wanted to sell millions of carbon-offset credits to preserve its rainforests, government officials knew they had a problem: The country’s lush Amazonian forests were actually in good shape.

Guyana’s rate of deforestation was already low, meaning its forests wouldn’t yield much under standard methodologies for calculating carbon credits. So its government chose a new method that allows a large adjustment for countries with healthy forests. The change raised the credits that Guyana could issue sixfold. Guyana sold 37.5 million of them last year to U.S. oil giant Hess for at least $750 million, and is now shopping the remaining two thirds to countries facing pressure to comply with the landmark Paris climate accord, officials say.

That agreement calls for governments to adopt national plans to limit greenhouse-gas emissions and allows them to pay for emission-reduction projects elsewhere in the world to offset their own pollution. Credits for each ton of emissions cut can then be traded between countries. It is as if the emission reduction happened in the country buying the credit, not the one selling it.

Guyana is among the first in a long line of developing-world countries expected to cash in on credits compliant with United Nations agreements. Some officials worry the U.N. risks giving its seal of approval to credits for forests that aren’t under threat. At the COP28 climate summit under way in Dubai, negotiators are debating how much scrutiny carbon trading should face from U.N. experts and the public to prevent the mechanism from becoming a loophole in the Paris accord.

“If we play that game—every country gets to come in and pull an arbitrary methodology out of the ether, apply it to their forest areas and say give me credits—we’re never going to get anywhere,” said Kevin Conrad, the climate envoy of Papua New Guinea.

For now, the Paris accord imposes relatively little oversight on the market. Credits are required to undergo review by a panel of experts. But at last year’s COP in Egypt, governments decided that the experts wouldn’t be allowed to review the “appropriateness” or “adequacy” of projects.

That is fuelling fears the accord opens the door for polluting countries to buy lower-quality credits from poorer nations to meet their own emissions targets, undermining the Paris accord ambition of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial era temperatures. Some developing countries are pushing for the right to keep much of the information around offset projects confidential. Companies would end up buying the credits, critics say, that would support spurious greenhouse-gas reduction claims. Hess said it would apply Guyana’s credits to its goal of completely offsetting its emissions by 2050.

“There is very little oversight of the process,” said Jonathan Crook of Carbon Market Watch, a Brussels-based nonprofit. “Some countries could set a higher bar, but there’s a risk that others do not.”

Guyana is in talks to sell credits to Singapore, which is evaluating whether it will accept the adjustment for low deforestation countries, an official involved in the talks said. The U.N.’s civil aviation agency last year said it would accept Guyana’s methodology under new regulations it set to limit emissions from international flights, making Guyana’s offsets the first eligible under the rules.

Switzerland is moving to purchase the first credits under the Paris accord, for non-forest projects in Ghana, Thailand and Vanuatu. The credits will then be used by Swiss companies to comply with the country’s greenhouse-gas limits under the Paris accord.

The Swiss government is refusing to invest in forestry projects because of uncertainties around the baseline against which the lack of deforestation is measured. Switzerland also has concerns around whether protections for forests are long term—a tree cut down or destroyed in the future would release the planet-warming carbon dioxide it has absorbed over its lifetime.

Corporations over the past decade have invested billions of dollars in greenhouse-gas offset projects in the developing world. Those projects yield so-called voluntary carbon credits: The companies are under no legal obligation to buy them but do so because of public commitments they have made to offset their carbon emissions.

Academic research and media reports have cast doubt on the impact of many of the projects underlying these credits. The problems were particularly acute in projects to prevent deforestation. Because such programs typically cover relatively small areas within a larger forest, they risk pushing logging and clear-cutting for agriculture into other sections that aren’t protected by a project.

Guyana’s project is designed to address some of these problems. It is one of the first to cover an entire nation, eliminating the possibility that deforestation could be displaced within the country. Covering around 45 million acres, it is one of the world’s largest forest-protection projects, according to Trove Research.

Guyana has some of the most pristine forests on the planet. They have been mostly spared the rampant logging and clear-cutting seen in neighbouring Brazil. Guyana lacks rich soil suitable for large-scale agriculture, a major driver of deforestation, scientists say.

“These are among the poorest soils on the planet,” said Janette Bulkan, a Guyanese forestry expert at the University of British Columbia.

Critics say issuing credits for protecting such forests violates a core principle of carbon crediting: They should only be issued for emissions that would have happened without the project.

Guyanese officials say its forests are nevertheless at risk in the near future without intervention. The country’s economy is growing quickly, as is global demand for the commodities that could be extracted from its rainforests. Guyana is also reaping a windfall from oil discoveries off its coast that are now being pumped by Exxon Mobil and Hess.

“Guyana’s forests offer opportunities for a wide range of goods and services, and development opportunities for opening up areas for industry and manufacturing,” said Pradeepa Bholanath, who oversees climate policy at Guyana’s Ministry of Natural Resources.

Guyana’s credits have been calculated by Architecture for REDD+ Transactions, a program run by the U.S. nonprofit Winrock International. The program’s methodology allows countries like Guyana that have had little deforestation in the past to issue credits against apredicted future level of deforestation under a formula devised by Winrock.

Winrock and other advocates of the methodology say the money allows much-needed climate finance to flow to rain-forested countries, even if they haven’t experienced past deforestation. Guyana has already received more than $100 million in its deal with Hess. Officials say that money is reaching tribes that live in the rainforests and being used nationally for forest preservation and renewable energy projects.

Think appearances don’t matter if you’re applying for a job online? New research shows that looking the part is very much part of the equation.

Your credentials and referrals may get you on the shortlist. Even if the whole process takes place online, though, it’s rare that a hiring manager won’t check out your LinkedIn profile. Making the final cut can come down to nailing a specific professional look, according to a new study published by the Harvard Business School.

Analysing 63,000 job openings and the more than 160,000 freelancers who applied for them over a six-month period, researchers found that certain accessories or physical features gave candidates an edge in landing the job—even after controlling for race, age and gender. Researchers used computer vision technology and machine learning to help classify which attributes made someone be perceived as a better fit for a job, then examined what role that played in hiring.

Different jobs favoured certain looks. The analysis showed that men wearing glasses and having a computer visible in the photo were perceived to be a better fit for a software programming assignment than men without glasses, boosting their chances of getting it. A beard gave them a slight edge, too.

With design and media-related jobs—one of two broad job categories examined in the study—flashing a smile and using a photo with high image quality was also important. Women sporting reading glasses and an “artistic” look were seen as a better fit for graphic design jobs than other women.

The researchers, from Harvard and the University of Southern California, found that certain photo features could tilt the selection process when profiles included equally high ratings from previous clients. The advantage could be roughly the equivalent of a 5% pay differential.

On the other hand, the study suggests that looking the part for a job doesn’t rely just on a candidate’s gender, ethnicity and age. Rather, paying attention to the details of a profile photo can go a long way, recruiters say.

“We would be fooling ourselves to say it’s not part of the package,” says Jessica Vann, founder of Maven Recruiting Group, a San Francisco job-placement firm. While not as important as job or communication skills, “it’s a piece, for sure.”

It’s generally a good idea to have a neutral background and no children, pets or celebrities in the photo. Vann, whose firm specialises in placing executive assistants and chiefs of staff at Silicon Valley companies, says she has counselled job seekers to eschew an obviously AI-generated photo or tone down the makeup.

In a CivicScience poll of more than 2,000 people conducted online last week, about half of respondents said they had used a professional-looking photo of themselves in some capacity; 82% agree that appearance makes a difference in a job offer.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating because of race, gender and religion, among other factors. But other aspects of personal appearance—whether height, weight or hairstyle—aren’t necessarily covered by the federal statute, says Steven Pearlman, a labor attorney at Proskauer Rose in Chicago. Plus, it’s often difficult to legally prove whether such biases were the reason for a candidate’s rejection.

Brent McCreary, a theatre ticketing director in New York, has found certain photo details can swing a hiring manager’s decision either way. His professional profile picture usually shows him with a favorite celebrity. At one point it was Britney Spears. Now it’s Kelly Clarkson.

The choice worked against him when he lost out on a revenue management job at a theme park three years ago. In the rejection note, the interviewer suggested a more professional LinkedIn photo.

A month later, though, the executive director of a San Francisco-based streaming platform contacted him. The job he’d applied for was already filled but she noticed his photo. “Your personality and background seem so fun and special,” she wrote in a LinkedIn message. When another project-management job opened soon after, McCreary got it. The job turned out to be a better fit for him, too, he says.

“The company I ended up working for was one where I kind of jelled with the organisation,” he says.

Looking the part is often informed by stories and stereotypes, career coaches say. “You see it in books and movies,” says Catherine Fisher, a LinkedIn career expert who studies data and trends on the professional social media network.

Every industry has its own sartorial vibe, from the fleeced vests and sweatshirts of Silicon Valley to the traditionally suited-up finance crowd in New York.

“You always think hoodies are related to tech companies, but that doesn’t mean I have to wear one,” Fisher says. By the same token, angular bobs and big sunglasses have come to be associated with the fashion industry, though “not everyone in fashion looks like Anna Wintour,” she says.

That’s rapidly changing as home and work life become more mixed, Fisher says. More than half of working Americans say that how they present themselves at work has changed since the pandemic, according to a poll of 2,000 people conducted last year by LinkedIn. Two-thirds said they thought that managers and co-workers were more accepting of different ways of dressing and styling than several years ago.

Alice Stephenson, a 42-year-old lawyer, says that for much of her early career, she dressed the part and concealed her piercings and tattoos. “I wore a stereotype of what a professional looked like,” she says. “I never felt comfortable or able to express my own individuality or creativity through my appearance.”

That changed after she started her own law firm. In her photo on the firm’s website, in her email signature and on LinkedIn, she is wearing a friendly smile, a blue sleeveless dress and a visible sleeve of tattoos.

“I want to look friendly and approachable,” says Stephenson, who lives in Amsterdam. “That’s key to my brand.”

Retailers are making modest predictions about the holiday shopping season—and their stocks are going gangbusters in response.

Victoria’s Secret, Foot Locker, Ulta Beauty and Dollar Tree are among the companies that offered somewhat mixed assessments of the state of the shopper last week. Yet each received an ovation from investors.

Traders have piled into stocks en masse since a softer-than-expected inflation reading on Nov. 14 bolstered wagers that the Federal Reserve is done raising interest rates and is poised to cool the economy without tipping it into a recession. Treasury yields have sharply declined as well, giving equities a second wind.

The S&P 500 has risen 4.1% since the report, extending its gains for the year to almost 20%.

Many depressed sectors of the market, such as retailers, have risen even faster. The SPDR S&P Retail exchange-traded fund—which includes 78 retailers, from department stores and other apparel companies, to automotive and drugstores—has jumped about 13%. Victoria’s Secret has soared 52%, Foot Locker is up 50%, Ulta has risen 21% and Dollar Tree has added 12%. (Three of the four stocks have suffered double-digit percentage declines this year.)

Americans slowed their spending in October, according to last week’s consumer-spending data from the Commerce Department. But the early readings from the holiday shopping season have been more encouraging. U.S. shoppers spent $38 billion during the five days from Thanksgiving through the following Monday, up 7.8% from the same period last year, according to Adobe Analytics.

Many investors closely watch consumer spending because it is a major driver of economic growth. If spending is too strong, the Fed could be forced to raise interest rates again. Whereas, if spending is too weak, it could be a sign that the economy is entering a recession.

In the coming days, investors will look at U.S. service-sector activity for November and Friday’s monthly jobs report as they try to assess the strength of the economy and the market’s trajectory.

“The consumer has been resilient throughout it all,” said Jay Woods, chief global strategist at Freedom Capital Markets. “The economic news is now starting to back that up, that, ‘OK, we aren’t going to be in a recession. Things are getting a little bit better.’ And these stocks that had been beaten-down are finally catching a bid.”

Victoria’s Secret posted its second consecutive quarterly loss Wednesday, with the lingerie retailer facing a continued slump in sales. But the company forecast higher sales in the current quarter, sending shares up 14% the next day, their largest one-day percentage gain in more than two years. The stock is down 20% in 2023.

Footwear retailer Foot Locker said Wednesday that Black Friday sales were strong and it forecast an upbeat holiday shopping period, while reporting lower sales and profit for the third quarter. Its shares rose 16% that day, their biggest gain in more than a year, trimming their 2023 decline to 21%.

Cosmetic retailer Ulta on Thursday posted stronger-than-expected sales in the third quarter and raised the lower end of its sales and profit outlook for the year. The shares rose 11% in the following session, their best day since May 2022. They are up 0.6% for the year.

Dollar Tree reported Wednesday that same-store sales growth was weaker than analysts expected, but investors appeared to be encouraged that the discount retailer is seeing increases in customer traffic, even if basket sizes are shrinking. Its shares rose 4.4% that day and are off 11% in 2023.

Another reason why retail stocks have rallied? Warehouses have reduced merchandise, and store shelves aren’t spilling over with discounted goods.

John Augustine, chief investment officer at Huntington Private Bank, said higher interest rates and oil prices made him bearish on retail stocks over the summer. But with an easing macro environment, he believes retailers could be poised to do well.

“It seems like traffic is gonna be there for the holidays,” Augustine said. “Now can retailers make the same profit, earnings per share, with tighter inventory?”

Short sellers are licking their wounds after the recent rally. They lost about $120 million in November betting against the SPDR S&P Retail ETF, according to financial-analytics firm S3 Partners. That compares with a loss of $2.8 million through the first 10 months of the year. Short sellers borrow shares and sell them, expecting to repurchase them at lower prices and collect the difference as profit.

Many retail stocks still generally look cheap compared with the broader market. Victoria’s Secret is trading at 11.8 times its projected earnings over the next 12 months, while Foot Locker is at 16.2. The S&P 500’s multiple is 18.8.

Despite the recent excitement in markets, many investors caution that it is too soon to count on a soft landing for the economy. Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, recently cautioned that inflation could rise further and a recession isn’t off the table.

In the past 11 Fed rate-hiking cycles, recessions have typically started around two years after the Fed begins raising interest rates, according to Deutsche Bank. This hiking cycle started last March.

“It’s not an all-clear resurgence trade that we’re in right now,” said Brock Campbell, head of global research at Newton Investment Management. “This is gonna be a much more idiosyncratic stock picker’s group for a while.”

LONDON—Fashion retailers have found a way to make their shops dazzle customers again: make them more like Apple stores.

Brands including H&M and Zara have closed hundreds of stores in recent years to cut costs as more shoppers turn to e-commerce. Now they are investing in those that remain to woo customers in ways they can’t online.

The new-look stores are typically larger and more spacious, offer services such as beauty salons, repair stations and coffee shops, and enable new digital features such as apps that allow shoppers to rummage virtually through the storeroom.

“Now it’s about engaging with consumers and giving them an experience,” said Henrik Nordvall, manager of H&M’s U.K. business.

At the brand’s recently redesigned store on London’s Regent Street, foot traffic matters more than sales figures, Nordvall said. While in-store sales are still strong, many customers spend time there developing an affinity with the brand and then buy clothes online later, he added.

The refurbished store is home to a floor-to-ceiling TV screen that the company says is the biggest in any store in Europe, a beauty bar for customers to book nail or eyelash treatments, and a rental section where shoppers can borrow selected items, especially relatively expensive clothes from H&M’s designer collaborations.

Since the changes, the average duration of a customer visit has increased substantially, said Nordvall, who declined to provide specific numbers.

By turning their stores into destinations that shoppers actively seek out and spend time in—a model that Apple honed with its roomy, landmark stores filled with usable gadgets—the fashion retailers are redefining the clothing store for the digital age.

Retailers once needed a large network of stores “to reach people, but now they have the internet for that,” said Patricia Cifuentes, an analyst at the asset manager Bestinver. “Now stores are about brand image. They’re like tourist destinations.”

Not every retailer is following the approach of the big global fashion brands. Macy’s, for example, is opening smaller stores as a way of bringing its brand to places where customers run their daily errands. The electronics chain Best Buy is closing larger locations and opening small stores instead.

But for global fashion’s heavy hitters the shift toward fewer but better stores is well under way. While the investment could backfire if the stores fail to draw sustained traffic, for now the strategy appears to be working.

Inditex, the parent of Zara, has eliminated a quarter of its stores since 2018 and now has 5,745 locations across its brand stable, which also includes Bershka and Massimo Dutti. Yet the Spanish group’s total revenue from stores increased 8% in 2022 compared with four years earlier, with each store selling 30% more on average, Chief Executive Officer Oscar Garcia Maceiras said on a recent earnings call.

After closing its weaker locations and upgrading the rest, “We have been left with a network of bigger, better and more beautiful stores in the best retail destinations globally,” Garcia said.

Despite operating fewer stores overall, Inditex increased its capital expenditure budget for 2023 by 14% to 1.6 billion euros, equivalent to about $1.7 billion, half of which is earmarked to make improvements to stores.

Much of that money is being spent on the rollout of a new Zara store design—including at new U.S. locations in Baton Rouge, La., and San Antonio—to make the shopping experience more enjoyable.

Essential to the new layouts is making stores feel roomier by having more open space between displays so customers don’t feel crowded. With more open space, stores will increasingly have discrete in-store boutiques to highlight individual collections.

Zara has a team of in-house architects who design its stores, and uses pilot stores at its headquarters in Spain to experiment with new layouts.

Garcia, who regularly visits Zara stores around the world, said in a recent interview that store managers routinely tell him they want to expand because only larger stores are able to accommodate most or all of Zara’s range.

The Zara store in Miami is one beneficiary of the move toward bigger and better: It is doubling in size, according to Garcia, to provide the more spacious experience the company wants to deliver.

Bigger stores are more productive, Zara has found. Though stores are getting larger, sales per square foot is now up 16% relative to 2019, Garcia said.

Zara is cramming its stores with new tech such as automatic return and collection points, as well as self-checkout areas. Customers can use the Zara app to check the contents of the storeroom to see if an item is available in their sizes, for example.

H&M has shrunk its store count 14% from its 2019 peak to 4,375 outlets today. The company doesn’t break down its revenue into physical and online, and says the two parts of the business are complementary.

Increasingly, stores “are a way for our customers to get inspiration,” CEO Helena Helmersson said in a recent interview.

H&M upped its capital spending budget 43% for 2023 to roughly $1 billion, partly to push ahead with store modernisation.

Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, H&M’s leaders recognised it was time to update the physical store to offer a more engaging experience, said Nordvall, the U.K. manager. When the pandemic led to a surge in online sales, the company accelerated its effort to redesign its stores, he said.

The revamp of the Swedish brand’s store on London’s Regent Street was aimed at encouraging customers to spend more time there. It has a secondhand area, Lego sculptures in the children’s section and fitting rooms with a built-in selfie function.

H&M also uses the store to host events for shoppers who sign up for its membership program. In November, it held a party to mark the launch of a collaboration with the fashion house Rabanne.

The Japanese brand Uniqlo is still expanding in Western markets, where its footprint is significantly smaller than H&M and Zara, but it is also opening so-called destination stores.

The chain’s recently opened store in London’s Covent Garden is located in a converted Victorian-era carriage works building, where shop floors loop around a brightly sunlit courtyard beneath a vaulted glass roof. There is a Japanese tea shop upstairs with a rooftop balcony, and a florist downstairs.

Visitors can use a machine to print their own T-shirt designs, have clothes altered or mended at the store’s repair station, and lounge in comfy chairs while browsing coffee-table books.

While online sales are growing, destination stores “have become the driver of European earnings,” as well as places where the brand communicates what it stands for, said Taku Morikawa, the CEO of Uniqlo Europe, during a recent earnings presentation.

Only a memorable in-store experience will make customers trust and admire your brand, he said.

In the past few years, Washington and Wall Street started fantasising that the transition to net-zero carbon emissions could be an economic bonanza. “When I think climate change, I think jobs,” President Biden said. When Wall Street heard green energy, it saw profits. As Ford Motor launched an electric Mustang and pickup truck, its market value topped $100 billion for the first time.

This year the fantasy ended. With electric vehicle demand falling short of expectations, manufacturers are dialling back production and buying back stock instead. Offshore wind developers have canceled projects. The S&P Global Clean Energy Index has fallen 30% this year. Ford’s market cap is down to $42 billion.

This doesn’t mean the transition to net zero is over. Officials meeting this week at the United Nations climate conference are just as worried about climate change. Renewable energy continues to expand. In the very long run, it is still the case that economic welfare will be higher with less global warming.

But the economics of getting to net zero remain, fundamentally, dismal: Someone has to pay for it, and shareholders and consumers decided this year it wouldn’t be them.

Politicians and the public tend to think all investment is good for growth, an error that leads to all sorts of muddled thinking about climate.

Technological transformations are positive supply shocks: a new, more efficient technology comes along, and investment naturally gravitates toward this new technology because it is profitable.

By contrast, the green transition is driven by public policy. It is “a negative supply shock, with an accompanying need to finance investments whose profitability cannot be taken for granted,” French economist Jean Pisani-Ferry wrote in a report commissioned by the French prime minister and released in English in November. “By putting a price—financial or implicit—on a free resource (the climate), the transition increases production costs, with no guarantee that the reduction in energy costs will eventually offset them, while the investments it calls for do not increase productive capacity but must nevertheless be financed.”

Pisani-Ferry, who is affiliated with the Bruegel think tank in Europe and the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, is an uncommonly clear thinker on this issue.

He notes the transition involves hefty capital spending today to replace fossil-fuel consumption in the future. Pisani-Ferry estimates a middle-class French family would spend 44% of annual disposable income for a heat pump, and 120% for an electric car. These investments boost demand, but don’t leave families better off since they simply do the same thing as what they replace. And if taxes rise to pay for these investments, families will be worse off, financially.

“It would take an incredible act of blindness to fail to recognise that climate change is happening, that it is—and will increasingly become—severely damaging,” he writes. “It would also be incredibly flippant to claim that this urgent and imperative action will have no economic cost by 2030.”

The most efficient way to redirect consumption and investment from fossil fuels to zero-emissions energy is a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade system. Europe has adopted such a system plus ever more stringent goals, especially after Russia cut off natural-gas supplies following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. But as the cost has grown, so has public discontent, from France’s “yellow vest” protests in 2018 to last week’s first-place finish in Dutch elections by the far-right Freedom Party, which wants to ditch all climate regulations.

U.S. leaders have rejected any federal tax or fee on carbon. Biden’s solution is to not ask consumers to pay for the green transition; his Inflation Reduction Act pours, by some estimates, roughly $1 trillion into electric vehicles, renewable energy, hydrogen and other zero-emissions technology.

Subsidies can play a vital role by giving green energy time to scale up and innovate until it is competitive with fossil fuels. But the IRA has been undermined by extraneous conditions such as made-in-America requirements, and by green tech inflation—a byproduct of the IRA itself, which helped fuel demand.

Finally, Biden’s investment agenda was designed for the pre pandemic era when low interest rates flattered the financial profile of renewable energy investment and federal budget deficits were less likely to crowd out private investment. Those assumptions no longer apply.

For years, the cost of wind and solar plummeted, but since 2021 they have risen, according to investment bank Lazard. Interest rates are an important factor, which Lazard estimates affect offshore wind and solar more than natural gas.

Many developers can no longer economically supply power at the rates previously agreed to. Denmark’s Orsted, the world’s largest wind developer, took a $4 billion charge in early November for pulling out of two projects off New Jersey. The company today is worth 75% less than in early 2021.

ClearView Energy Partners estimates about 30% of state-contracted offshore wind capacity has been canceled, and another 25% may be rebid. ClearView analyst Timothy Fox noted lawmakers often mandate increased renewables, but utility regulators must approve the contracts, and one of their primary considerations is cost to ratepayers.

“I am an unapologetic economic regulator,” Diane Burman, a member of the New York state Public Service Commission, said in October as the commission refused to pay wind developers more. Decarbonization and grid improvement must proceed “with costs in mind.”

The financial appeal of EVs has similarly faded. Tesla proved making them can be profitable, but so far it looks like an outlier. Tesla captured the lion’s share of early adopters—drivers willing to put up with the cost and recharging hassle of an EV in return for performance and green credentials. For most drivers, the trade off still doesn’t work—even with subsidies.

True, the IRA has spurred a boom in EV and battery factories. But a successful green transition requires that those factories be profitable, and Detroit’s automakers are still losing money on every EV they sell.

EVs should eventually require less labor and thus be cheaper to build than gasoline-powered vehicles. But auto workers are no more willing to pay for the green transition than consumers or investors. In its recent strike, the United Auto Workers extracted commitments that make it even harder for Detroit to make money on EVs.

In a sobering report this week, Morgan Stanley auto analysts estimated the average non financial company in the S&P 500 spends its market cap in capital expenditure and research and development in about 50 years. GM and Ford spend theirs in 1.9 and 2.6 years, respectively. “This cannot continue, in our view.”

The green transition remains critical, but its path will be fraught until someone agrees to pay for it.

Charlie Munger was Robin to Warren Buffett’s Batman, a business equivalent of the Edge rocking with the Bono of investing.

Munger, who died Tuesday at age 99, played one of the toughest roles in the corporate (or any) world: No. 2.

Succeeding as second in command takes a rare blend of confidence and humility, say people who’ve done it. The consummate right-hand person must be devoted to organisational success while accepting that someone else’s star will always shine brighter.

At a time when many American workers are reconsidering whether the race to the top is worth running at all, Munger’s apparent satisfaction with being the ultimate sidekick could be a model.

It helped that Warren and Charlie, as the duo was known, shared a personal friendship. And being a wingman is presumably more fun when you’re a billionaire, as Munger was. Most important, say those who knew him: Munger knew he was respected and appreciated.

Buffett made sure of it.

Harry Kraemer, former chief executive of the healthcare company Baxter International, recalls a conversation with Buffett at a CEO gathering around the year 2000: “I said, ‘Boy, you’ve got an amazing track record.’ And he goes, ‘It isn’t just me. Never mention my name without Charlie’s.’”

In a recent annual letter, Buffett wrote: “I never have a phone call with Charlie without learning something.”

There aren’t many pairs like Buffett and Munger. An analog might be the late Canadian telecom mogul Ted Rogers and his longtime lieutenant, Phil Lind, who died in August at age 80. Robert Brehl, who co-wrote Lind’s 2018 memoir, “Right Hand Man,” says loyalty is essential to a relationship like Rogers-Lind or Buffett-Munger.

Having complementary strengths and interests helps ward off resentment, Brehl adds.

“You have to have the yin and yang,” he says. “Ted wouldn’t have been as effective without Phil, and the same thing with Warren and Charlie.”

Before meeting Buffett, Munger was already a professional success. He served in World War II, went to Harvard Law School and co-founded a law firm, Munger, Tolles & Olson, where his name was first on the door.

Even though his results as an investor were strong, over time, he realised he could be more successful—and happier—in a partnership. Understanding his own shortcomings contributed to his willingness to become Buffett’s running mate, he has said. He rejected Buffett’s initial overtures before agreeing to come aboard.

“It took me a long time to wise up that [Buffett] had a better way of making a living than I did,” Munger told CNBC in 2021. “But he finally convinced me that I was wasting my time.”

Not that it was easy to set aside his ego to take the No. 2 role and play to what his No. 1 needed. Buffett was Berkshire Hathaway’s public face and larger-than-life persona. Munger seemed to relish his freedom from talking to reporters and investors. In the background, he could be sharper, more direct and funnier.

The durability of the Buffett-and-Munger duo act stemmed, in part, from a shared intellectual curiosity, a measure of humility—for billionaires, anyway—and willingness to learn from their mistakes.

“I constantly see people rise in life who are not the smartest, sometimes not even the most diligent, but they are learning machines,” Munger said in his commencement address to the University of Southern California’s law school in 2007. “They go to bed every night a little wiser than they were when they got up and, boy, does that help, particularly when you have a long run ahead of you.”

Savvy runners also know it can be best to let someone else take the lead to break the wind. A certain type of person prefers to run second, says social psychologist Tessa West, who is studying people she calls “runners up” for a forthcoming book.

“Once you get to a certain level of power, you realize that that top position doesn’t necessarily come with more influence—it just comes with more publicity and a lot more reputational risk,” she says. “The way I see it, Munger got to have his cake and eat it too. He had status without all the headaches.”

He also had a life outside of Berkshire and Buffett. One of Munger’s pet projects was a quest to design the perfect college dormitory.

He’ll be remembered as the consummate consigliere, but that wasn’t his whole identity.

—Geoffrey Rogow contributed to this article.