Should capitalism be deemed psychopathic and criminalised? A reply to “psychopathy incorporated” Open Access

Capitalism is under attack from within and for example, Wolf, a chief economics writer for the Financial Times, has argued that shareholder capitalism has become dysfunctional (Wolf, 2009). More radically, a recent paper reported on a qualitative, structural analysis of capitalism and concluded that it needs to be defined as a criminally insane “psychopathic system” because its structural dynamics centralise and concentrate wealth and ideological/political power in the hands of a “psychopathic ruling class” with callous disregard for the resulting socio-ecological destruction (Priels, 2023). Further, there has been a trans-historical problem of psychopathy in power and a recognition that we now need to humanise socio-economic structures (Priels, 2023). This is an important debate about socio-economic systems and how we organise ourselves as a society which warrants further discussion.

Therefore, this current paper aims to reply to this idea that capitalism is psychopathic via examining the literature on corporate psychopaths, which is to say those psychopaths who work in the corporate, capitalist, western environment. Corporate psychopaths are drawn from the 1% of the population who are categorically psychopathic (Coid et al., 2009) and who work in the corporate and organisational environment. However, besides this 1% a further significant minority of the population, Levenson cites 23% of males, for example (Levenson et al., 1995), are sufficiently psychopathic (ruthless, uncaring, emotionally detached and without conscience) to be problematic in their behaviour, especially, it may be argued, if they are led by a categorical psychopath. Such psychopaths can bring out the worst aspects in their followers. Besides the literature on corporate psychopaths, there is a much wider literature on ‘successful psychopaths’ and ‘primary psychopaths’ but many of these studies rely on samples of often female psychology students or the general population and so are not as relevant to the corporate environment as research among corporate samples is. Papers on corporate psychopathy are the most important to study if conclusions about corporate, capitalistic morality and ethics are to be made.

When capitalism involves mutually beneficial transactions capitalism can have a civilising and enriching effect because it involves cooperation and the establishment of mutual understanding as long term economic relationships develop and flourish (Rollert, 2016). The mutual benefits of trading can enrich all parties if economies of expertise are allowed to flourish, and trading is allowed to take place. On the other hand, capitalism can be envisaged as a ruthless, exploitative activity that preys on the duress, vulnerability, and ignorance of others to exploit them for financial profit and gain (Rollert, 2016). Rollert gives the example of businessman Donald Trump as someone who practices what Rollert describes as a ruthlessly sociopathic form of capitalism, where there are winners but also losers. According to Rollert, it is this sociopathic form of capitalism that currently dominates the world economy (Rollert, 2016). Indeed, leaders are advised to say in touch with their “inner psychopath” to succeed in business (Johnson, 2017).

Other examples of ruthless and significantly psychopathic leaders included Robert Maxwell, at one time the much-praised media baron rival to Rupert Murdoch, and Albert Dunlap, who closed down factories across the American heartland and was applauded and rewarded by Wall Street for doing so.

Dunlap reportedly delighted in cutting costs, closing plants and firing people. Albert Dunlap was the CEO of Scott Paper and thereafter the Sunbeam Corporation in the USA and was at first lauded by analysts on Wall Street as an “all-American business hero”. He was subsequently known as “Chainsaw Al Dunlap” because of his ruthless and bullying approach to cutting costs and firing employees. A report in a review of an attempted takeover, written by the UK Department of Trade and industry (DTI), raised concerns over whether Dunlap was a “fit and proper person” to run a company. As an example of his psychopathic characteristics, and accepting that callousness is a key trait of psychopaths, Dunlap was described as being outrageously callous by a writer on leadership (Kellerman, 2005). This identifies him as a possible psychopath. Dunlap was also mentioned as a possible psychopath in an article in “Fast Company” magazine (Deutschman, 2005) as well as being discussed by Hare (a psychopathy researcher) as a possible corporate psychopath (Ronson, 2011).

At Scott Paper, at that time the world’s leading manufacturer of tissue paper, Dunlap started in 1994 and soon shed about $2bn of assets and made a third of the global workforce redundant. To many analysts such a strategy suggested a move to make Scott Paper an appealing acquisition target (rather than a corporation with an independent future) and indeed by the end of 1995 Dunlap had arranged the sale of the corporation to its competitor, Kimberley Clark (Boddy, 2018). This move caused many more involuntary redundancies at both companies. This type of downsizing is allied with stress and ill-health among employees (Anderson-Connolly et al., 2002; Carter et al., 2013) as well as abridged career opportunities for middle managers (McGovern et al., 1998) whereas Dunlap’s severance package was activated by the takeover and he walked away with a reported $100m.

In the process Scott Paper’s headquarters was closed down and in total, about 11,000 people lost their jobs during Dunlap’s management. Similar ‘re-structuring’ by other corporate asset strippers in other companies left entire US towns “destitute”, bereft of any major employers. In line with the finding that corporate psychopaths have no sense of corporate social responsibility, Dunlap reportedly cut all of Scott’s ties to local community and charity work.

After moving to Sunbeam corporation, Dunlap was reported to symbolise the problems with modern management and to be the forerunner of similarly fraudulent events at Enron. Dunlap was also described by one senior executive who worked with him as being “one of the pioneers […] of fabricating numbers” (Jacobs, 2005). In Dunlap’s biography, he is described as aggressive, yelling, ranting, and raving in meetings in a belligerent manner that lacked respect for employees and was profane to the point of violence. Such swearing and profanity are characteristic of psychopaths (Sumner et al., 2012; Boochever, 2012). In the analysis of Dunlap’s business procedures, he is accused of a catalogue of fundamental business errors, including cutting costs, employees, and plants too quickly and in too chaotic a manner so that it became difficult or even impossible for remaining employees to do their jobs (Byrne, 2000). So many cuts were made that employees who had been fired were asked to come back and explain how to turn on and use factory machinery (Jacobs, 2005). Eventually, the short term repairs at Sunbeam could not hide the long-term reality of a much slower-growing company than Dunlap depicted and he was fired by his own board of directors (Byrne, 2000; Byrne, 1998). Rather than being evidence of Dunlap’s being “the USA’s best CEO” this catalogue of basic business blunders suggests a neophyte at work or someone entirely out of touch with what was really happening in the business or else someone who knew exactly what was happening but didn’t care (Boddy, 2018).

In line with this view, Al Dunlap has been described as a ruthless and ultimately disastrous leader whose leadership of people and organisations was destructive (p. 221) (Nicholson, 2013). One of the recognised experts on dark leadership, Manfried Kets de Vries, wrote that Dunlap was an abysmal and narcissistic leader and described the darker type of such narcissists as being exploitative, vindictive, self-centred, and lacking in empathy. Further, they were reported as being personalities who treat other people as things rather than as human beings (Dearlove, 2003). Other academic experts on destructive leadership such as Harvey and his colleagues also name Dunlap (among others) as an abusive leader who used his management position for his own benefit at the expense of other employees and of the organisation as a whole (Harvey et al., 2007) and goes so far as to name Dunlap as a psychopathic leader (Boddy, 2018). Thus, major capitalist corporations are run into the ground by psychopathic leadership.

The leading financier Bernard Madoff has also been nominated as psychopathic and he miss-sold financial products to investors across 40 countries. The top three award winning leaders at Enron have also all been associated with holding the key characteristics of psychopathy. All six of these once admired leaders of capitalism were eventually found to be involved in fraudulent accounting practices (Boddy et al., 2024; Boddy, 2020).

In stating that Trump is a man of the times Rollert implies that modern capitalism is exploitative and ruthless, in other words that it has some psychopathic characteristics. This viewpoint is stated much more firmly in “Psychopathy Incorporated.” However, it can also be argued that capitalist enterprises are reflections of those who lead them because leaders set the tone at the top (Weber, 2010), as they establish the moral culture of organisations as it cascades downwards from leaders to those who are led (Palmer et al., 2020).

Narcissistic and psychopathic leaders can have a detrimental impact on organisational ethical outcomes (Boddy, 2020; Palmer et al., 2020). In line with Rollert’s description, Trump has been described as both narcissistic and partially psychopathic (Amis, 2016; Ashcroft, 2016; Baird, 2016) and as having some of the traits of psychopathy such as being a liar (countercurrentnews, 2016; Harnden, 2018) a sex predator (Gardner, 2016), an inflictor of pain (Friedersdorf, 2016), and as someone who promotes violence, fear, humiliation, and hatred (O’Harrow and Boburg, 2016; Friedersdorf, 2016). Trump has thus been described as sociopathic (Knight, 2016) egotistical (Laughland, 2016) psychopathic (Knapton and Dutton, 2016) and narcissistic (Pfeffer, 2016). As such he is not necessarily representative of capitalism as a whole.

On the other hand, within capitalism more broadly defined, 50% of people who leave their jobs do so because their direct line manager is difficult, rather than being honest, trustworthy, respectful and ethical (Walton, 2021). The dishonest, unethical, disrespectful and untrustworthy appear to be appointed to leadership as a matter of course to the extent that toxic leadership is described as pervasive (Walton, 2021). Corresponding with this viewpoint, Nicholson, after a lifetime of academic leadership research and leadership consultancy work, suggests that once senior management positions are reached, the field of candidates available for topmost (p. 266) leadership is marked by its lack of integrity. The emotionally intelligent, the balanced and the honest have long since been weeded out via the internal hierarchical struggle for advancement (Nicholson, 2013). In Nicholson’s experience the appointment from senior management ranks, of a toxic leader of some sort is therefore more or less inevitable. This view is further supported by evidence which shows that only 23% of employees consider their leader as ‘good’ with the rest being ‘average’ (38%) or bad (37%) (Erickson et al., 2007). Clearly within current capitalism, the “bad” are good at getting to the top and staying there (Boddy et al., 2021). Erickson and colleagues found that even when “bad” leaders are identified as bad, then either nothing happens to them, or they are promoted. Corporate psychopathy theory, which argues that the psychopathic are adept at getting promoted, is therefore supported by the finding that of the bad leaders, 45% end up getting promoted or rewarded and that they are rarely (13%) forced out of organisations (Erickson et al., 2007). Leading writers on leadership such as Hogan and his collaborators, also share this view that most leaders are bad in terms of being dark and ineffective and they get to the top via politicking and upward impression management, rather than because they are effective leaders (Hogan et al., 1994; Hogan and Hogan, 2001; Hogan and Kaiser, 2005; Kaiser et al., 2008; Hogan and Benson, 2009; Kaiser et al., 2013; Hogan, 2019; Hogan et al., 2021). There is also other evidence that psychopathic people are good at attaining senior corporate positions, for example, using a sample of 55 corporate finance workers in New York, Howe, Falkenbach and Massey (2014) found that one psychopathic factor, fearless dominance, significantly predicted senior corporate rank under regression analysis (Howe et al., 2014).

If capitalism is being directed by psychopaths (Boddy, 2011a) who willingly take unquantifiable risks with other people’s money, make poor investment decisions and are unethical (Cohan, 2012; DeCovny, 2012; Sekścińska and Rudzinska-Wojciechowska, 2020; Shank et al., 2019; Wisniewski et al., 2017) then they are a real and substantial threat to the global economy and to making capitalism psychopathic.

For the purpose of writing a chapter for a forthcoming book on corporate psychopaths, an on-line search for published, refereed, academic research papers containing the words ‘executive psychopath(s)/industrial psychopath(s)/organisational psychopath(s)/financial psychopath(s)/corporate psychopath(s) and/or sociopaths(s)’ in the title, abstract or key words was undertaken on 20th May 2022. Findings identified 75 papers and that the initial 1995 paper by Babiak was more or less met with silence (no related papers) for ten years after its first publication. This was probably because it was a paradigm breaking paper (Boddy et al., 2022a) with the prevailing paradigm being that psychopaths were impulsive, violently anti-social characters who could therefore not exist or be hireable or successful within the corporate world. In terms of frequency of authorship, Boddy was author of 40 papers, Babiak of 5, Mathieu of 3, Marshall of 2, Perri of 2, and Cheang and Applebaum of 2 others. Many other authors contributed to a single paper each. The Journal of Business Ethics is the journal which most frequently publishes (8 of 75) these papers, while the Journal of Public Affairs has published two. I draw from these authors and this growing literature to address and discuss the main points made in “Psychopathy Incorporated”.

In light of the available evidence based on the literature examined above, and some more recent literature on corporate psychopaths, I discuss each of the main points made in ‘Psychopathy Incorporated.’ Firstly, to assure readers that psychopaths within organisations have been identified using valid and reliable measures, some of these are described here. For example, Babiak, in his initial case study of an “industrial psychopath”, identified an individual executive as psychopathic by applying the criteria from a measure of psychopathy called the Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R) (Hare, 1991).

This is a clinical or forensic evaluation of a person’s character using case notes and behavioural reports from psychologists and/or psychiatrists. In turn, items used to identify primary psychopathy (it’s essential, non-criminal characteristics) in the PCL-R were taken from Cleckley’s characterisation of the psychopathic personality. In terms of the core characteristics of psychopathy; Cleckley, who is regarded as the original modern authority on psychopathy, included “superficial charm”, “untruthfulness and insincerity”, “egocentricity”, “lack of remorse”, “affective poverty”, “interpersonally unresponsiveness” and “unreliability and lack of insight” in his list of criteria for identifying psychopaths (Cleckley, 1941 / 1988).

Boddy’s research into corporate psychopaths uses a succinct but highly prototypical characterisation of psychopathy called the Psychopathy Measure – Management Research Version/P (PM-MRV). This measure is also grounded in the original conceptualisation of psychopathy as detailed by Hervey Cleckley in his book “The Mask of Sanity”. Cleckley is still regarded as being the key authority on psychopathy. Prominent psychopathy researchers estimate that such an explicit focus on the interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy make the PM-MRV measure well-suited to use in business research (Smith and Lilienfeld, 2013). Using this measure, evidence of financial fraud, CV/resume fraud, blackmail, and death threats has been uncovered. Other researchers, including Boddy, also use the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Measure (Levenson, 1993) to identify psychopaths in corporate samples. An additional way to identify psychopaths is via scans of human brain activity in response to emotional stimuli (Blair et al., 2005). This should theoretically be able to identify all types of psychopaths, from unsophisticated violent criminal psychopaths to clever and polished white-collar and political professionals. However, this method is time intensive, necessitates access to brain scanning technology and is not readily available to most management and leadership researchers.

The main points made in “Psychopathy Incorporated” are now addressed.

1. “The elephant in the room, awareness of the psychopathic mindset, is profoundly lacking in mainstream consciousness.”

This is well supported by the current literature review. Babiak’s initial paper on an industrial psychopath (Babiak, 1995) was more or less ignored at first and it was perhaps only when Robert Hare realised the implications and started to work with Babiak and others (Babiak and Hare, 2006), that the idea of the corporate psychopath, working within 20th Century capitalism, began to take root. Boddy describes the almost instantaneous rejection of his early papers on corporate psychopaths by leading management journals as the editors failed to grasp the reality of the new paradigm, reacting derisively to the idea of the ‘corporate psychopath’ and doubting the existence of such a person in corporate life. Additionally the view from academic colleagues was that studying corporate psychopaths was some amusing, marginal idea, peripheral to the concerns of mainstream management research (Boddy et al., 2022a).

Since then, the idea that corporate and political psychopaths destroy organisations via internal warfare and societies via geo-political warfare has become widely but not ubiquitously accepted. Even recently the idea of the white collar psychopath has been rejected and has had to be re-defended (Boddy et al., 2022b). Thus, we find that there has been, and to some extent still is, a lack of awareness concerning the psychopathic mindset and this may affect employees, organisations, and society.

2. “The ultimate goal of the psychopathic mindset is full spectrum dominance.”

This viewpoint is supported by this literature review as it is commonly accepted that all types of psychopaths are interested in gaining power and control over other people. To this end they seek socially dominant positions for themselves (Palmen et al., 2021; Glenn et al., 2017). For anti-social, criminal psychopaths this dominance is control over the physical bodies and physical well-being of their victims, while for corporate psychopaths this is control over the resources, career trajectories and psychological well-being of their colleagues. Corporate psychopaths attempt to maintain control via establishing a climate of fear where no one dare challenge the power of the psychopathic leader (Boddy et al., 2015b) and this abuse and bullying creates emotional distress among employees (Mathieu et al., 2012; Boulter and Boddy, 2021) often leading to mental health issues among employees (Boddy and Taplin, 2024). This 2018 research (reported in 2024) from Boddy and Taplin used a ten-item measure of mental distress and the PM-MRV measure discussed earlier and looked at the statistical significance between distress levels among 250 white collar Australian employees with more than five years work experience working in a wide variety of industry sectors. Those employees working under psychopathic managers reported significantly higher levels of mental distress, as compared to those working under non-psychopathic managers, and regression analysis confirmed this. All findings indicated significantly reduced mental health among employees when working under corporate psychopath managers, largely due to their use of dark humour, ridicule and abusive supervision.

3. “Psychopaths see themselves as superior, enjoy human suffering, and have no empathy or conscience.”

The lack of conscience of the psychopath is one of their defining features (Hare, 1993; Stout, 2005) and appears to be linked to their lack of emotional responsiveness and lack of empathy towards other people.

This lack of conscience in turn is linked to brain chemistry and connectivity anomalies in the parts of the brain which regulate and process emotions (Blair et al., 2005; Fallon, 2013; Kiehl, 2014; Weber-Papen et al., 2008). That psychopaths enjoy inflicting and observing human suffering is perhaps one of their traits that other people find hardest to imagine and understand. In terms of suffering, Boddy finds that between a quarter and a third of all corporate bullying is due to the presence of corporate psychopaths while another large portion is due to the partially psychopathic (Boddy, 2014; Boddy, 2011b) so that about half of all bullying is due to the small numbers of psychopathic managers within organisations. This finding was from a quantitative study of 346 managers where subordinates rated their line manager on a number of characteristics identified as psychopathic. Those managers scoring the most highly on this measure were called corporate psychopaths and the reported frequency of bullying in the environments led by corporate psychopaths was far higher, at a statistically significant level (p < 0.05), than it was among normal (non-psychopathic) managers.

Due to the frequency and severity of psychopathic bullying, Taplin and Boddy further estimated that the measure of bulling initially used was inadequate to capture its severity and frequency, and that therefore psychopathic workplace bullying may be even more serious than originally estimated (Boddy and Taplin, 2017). The legal implications of organisations hiring psychopaths as leaders are just beginning to be examined but abused employees may be able to sue offending organisations for the bullying and abuse they suffer under this psychopathic leadership (Sheehy et al., 2021).

4. “When we look at history, we see clear and repetitive examples of psychopathic capture. Psychopaths repeatedly and violently manage to re-seize power.”

From Ivan the Terrible to Hermann Goering to Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussain, the literature supports the view that there is repetitive psychopathic capture in politics (Boddy, 2017; Coolidge and Segal, 2007; Palmen et al., 2018; Post, 1991) but finds that this is not always violent. For example, even the German Nazi Party was initially voted into power sharing by a minority vote, albeit that they quick imposed violent tyranny and imprisonment upon their political opponents (Brendon, 2000; Rees, 2012; Boddy, 2021). Pinochet in Chile also imprisoned his political opponents after seizing power in a military coup, overthrowing a democratically elected leftist government in the 1970s.

In corporate life, the psychopathic manoeuvre themselves to the top via lies about their true abilities, successes, and qualifications (Boddy et al., 2021; Boddy and Croft, 2016; Boddy et al., 2015a) thus appearing as attractive candidates to HR professionals (Hill and Scott, 2019).

5. “Some societies in some periods […] have been warlike and cruel […] while others […] have been remarkedly peaceful and tolerant.”

This idea seems self-evident but is not specifically addressed in the literature on corporate psychopaths. However, it has been noted that psychopathic states will engage in warfare (Kassab, 2018) and that the 20th Century German Nazi Party and Government was led by three psychopaths, Hitler, Hess and Goering (Gilbert, 1948; Koehli, 2010; Boddy, 2021), and was systemically psychopathic as an organisation and linked to originating the costliest war in human history (Boddy, 2021; Dimsdale, 2016). Similarly, a sample of men convicted of crimes against humanity committed during the Pinochet regime in Chile, was examined by Hare and colleagues (Hare et al., 2022). Results provided strong evidence that these cruel and warlike military and police leaders were highly psychopathic.

They violated the human rights of their perceived political competitors (the left wing democratically elected government members – overthrown by Pinochet in a fascist coup) and displayed an extreme disposition for the self-serving, callous, and ruthless treatment of others, without any guilt or remorse (Hare et al., 2022). An interesting finding was that the higher the former rank of these leaders, the more psychopathic they were. This again tends to support the assumption of corporate psychopathy theory that corporate psychopaths tend to ascend to senior hierarchical positions, where they amass personal wealth (Boddy, 2005).

6. “Corporate profit […] and the pursuit of profit are the dominant, psychopathic, systemic forces shaping human society.”

The pursuit of power, money and control are what drives the psychopathic imagination (Boddy, 2024a; Glenn et al., 2017) and money is seen by them as a source of power over other people. Thus, in organisational leadership positions, the pursuit of profit to fuel enormous salaries and bonuses is arguably what drives corporate leaders (Sheehy and Boddy, 2021). According to the literature, corporations are often larger in financial terms than nation-states are and therefore they are hugely influential, and further, if they exclusively pursue profit above all other considerations, and externalise the social costs of doing business, then their influence on society will be a dominant and psychopathic systemic force (Bakan, 2004; Bell, 2015).

7. “The system incentivises a selection of psychopaths and sociopaths in authoritative positions […]. The system favours, selects and empowers psychopaths (with reduced empathy) by systemic incentives […]”:

8. “The problem with defining this system as merely capitalist or neoliberal is that this disregards the psychopathic mindset and thereby underestimates (its) enormous destructivity.”

The view that capitalism is bad (exploitative, greedy) whereas communism is good (fair, selfless), which some of our critical-management theorist colleagues seem to hold, is that it is an overly simplistic, black and white view of economic society. When personality is overlaid across this spectrum of societal blueprints, then increased complexity occurs and the psychopathic, driven by selfish desires within either ideological setup, ascend to leadership and distort the socio-economic system to their own benefit. The literature supports the view that psychopathy is enormously destructive as psychopathic leaders impact and damage all aspects of organisational and societal life (Boddy, 2011c) including job satisfaction and employee well-being (Mathieu et al., 2014), as well as emotional and psychological well-being (Boddy and Taplin, 2024; Boddy, 2014; Boddy et al., 2020; Boddy and Taplin, 2015; Boulter and Boddy, 2021).

9. “As a primary existential challenge, humanity has to learn how to recognise and avoid the systemic empowerment of psychopathy.”

While recognising that the systemic empowerment of psychopaths does take place, the literature discusses the key role of leadership in achieving global socio-economic and environmental sustainability and the difference between psychopathic leadership and caring leadership (Boddy, 2023). Psychopaths are perfectly willing to illegally dump toxic waste materials and thereby endanger the lives of future generations (Ray and Jones, 2010) and are associated with reduced levels of corporate social responsibility such as not working for the good of the environment and the people within it (Boddy et al., 2010). Furthermore, psychopathic managers are associated with deploying fake corporate social responsibility (Boddy et al., 2022b) to maintain the façade or mask of caring normality that psychopaths are associated with (Cleckley, 1941 / 1988). Furthermore, political psychopaths are deemed likely to use nuclear weapons for their own ends (Bierer, 1977), thus posing the existential threat to humanity that is mentioned in the paper “Psychopathy Incorporated”.

10. “We need a radical solution by criminalising capitalism.”

Psychopaths in organisational power already tend to criminalise their capitalistic organisations by engaging in massive fraud. In investigating some of the most lauded and admired “champions” of 20th Century capitalism this can consistently be seen in the historical case studies examined. These include cases involving Robert Maxwell and Mirror Group Newspapers in the UK with both Boddy and Hare nominating Maxwell as highly psychopathic (Boddy, 2016, BBC, 2004). Enron is another example of massive fraud and with all three top leaders being identified as holding psychopathic traits by both Boddy and Perri and others (Boddy, 2015; Perri, 2013; Perri, 2022).

Albert Dunlap at Sunbeam Corporation was also associated with financial misstatement fraud (Boddy, 2018; Sheehy and Boddy, 2021) and a psychopathic personality. While thousands were made redundant as factories closed across middle America, Dunlap walked away with millions of dollars.

Bernard Madoff was another highly psychopathic leader of shareholder capitalism who defrauded people from across 40 countries in his Ponzi investment scheme, involving the fraud of up to US$60billion. Madoff has repeatedly been identified as psychopathic or sociopathic (Boddy, 2024b; Greenspan, 2009; Henriques, 2012). Madoff reported that “The problem (with) the entire World’s financial system is that it is hard for anyone to imagine all the ills and corruption that exists in the government and Wall Street” (Henriques, 2012). Thus, the consummate insider to financial capitalism appears to agree with the idea that capitalism has become corrupt. Bernard Madoff, was the former chairman of the NASDAQ stock market, and the originator of the largest Ponzi scheme in world history, which also constituted the largest financial fraud in the U.S at the time (Henriques, 2012).

Other commentators also support the view that financial capitalism has become systemically sociopathic (James, 2016). However, criminalising capitalism would arguably throw the baby out with the bathwater as it does not discriminate between beneficial and harmful forms of capitalism, which is determined by those who lead. What is arguably now needed is a form of capitalism that is ethical and humane (Epstein, 1999).

The literature supports nearly all the main points made in the paper ‘Psychopathy Incorporated’ except that psychopathy is insane and that capitalism should be criminalised. It is agreed that psychopathic leadership within capitalist organisations is a major, largely unacknowledged problem facing society and contributing to global environmental unsustainability. However, criminalising capitalism, even if it were possible within a capitalist system, would not solve that problem, because human personality, including psychopathy, is stable and persistent over time. People, working under alternative ideological systems such as under communism, do not suddenly become more caring, more sharing, less ruthless, and less selfish. The psychopathic remain psychopathic and so the problem is one of personality, not ideology. What humanity needs is not the mass chaos and death associated with political revolution, but the appointment of caring leaders who avoid the excesses that capitalism and individualism can allow. Caring leadership is essential if humanity is to build and maintain an environmental ecosystem which is compatible with long term sustainability and habitability. Hard-hearted leadership, embodied by ruthless corporate managers and political leaders who are egocentrically psychopathic enough to make future-effecting decisions that entail problematic outcomes for civilisation, is a substantial hindrance to realising a feasible and prosperous future for humanity.

Psychopathy exists as a spectrum of callous and unemotional attitudes and behaviour in the adult population and there is a correlation between higher psychopathy and lower; morality, integrity, truthfulness, corporate social responsibility and with the willingness of conscience-free humans to dispose of toxic waste illegally. At the same time, psychopathic attributes confer on individuals the amplified capability to dauntlessly scramble into leadership positions in organisations, unhindered by the need to be humble, fair, honest, and decent. Once in leadership, their profound egocentric indifference towards other people, disinterest in the future of humanity, and unconcern over corporate social responsibility reveals itself.

This has severe costs for employees, organisations, and society. Combined with their willingness to engage in falsifying environmental influence reports and in fake corporate social responsibility; the impact of such psychopathic leadership becomes damaging to the ecosystem, civilisation, and humanity’s longitudinal prospects. If humanity is to establish and maintain a longitudinally sustainable trajectory, then uncaring psychopathic leaders must be superseded by those who do care.