Received: 7 July 2021 | Revised: 6 September 2021 | Accepted: 25 September 2021

DOI: 10.1111/beer.12398

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The dark triad and corporate sustainability: An empirical

analysis of personality traits of sustainability managers

Matthias Pelster1 | Stefan Schaltegger2

1
Department for Taxation, Accounting, and
Finance, Paderborn University, Paderborn,
Germany
2
Centre for Sustainability Management
(CSM), Leuphana University Lüneburg,
Lüneburg, Germany
Correspondence
Stefan Schaltegger, Centre for Sustainability
Management (CSM), Leuphana University
Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, D-­21335
Lüneburg, Germany.
Email: schaltegger@uni.leuphana.de
Abstract
Middle managers responsible for sustainability operationalize top management deci-
sions on the organization's social and environmental activities. With their focus on
sustainability, they could be expected to consider ethical issues particularly well in
their decisions and to possess ethical personality traits. While earlier research has
focused on top management this paper examines the influence of personality traits
of middle managers on their corporate sustainability preferences. Based on a primary
survey sample of 204 professionals responsible for sustainability in their company,
we study the relationship between dark triad personality traits (Machiavellianism,
narcissism, and psychopathy) of sustainability managers and their environmental and
social responsibility preferences. The analysis shows that managers who score higher
on the dark triad personality scale are less concerned about environmental and so-
cial responsibility issues. The business environment, analyzed in a cross-­cultural
comparison between the United States and Europe, and the organizational context
function as a moderator of the influence of personality traits on sustainability prefer-
ences. The results suggest that dark triad personality traits should be considered in
recruitment and assessment processes of middle managers responsible for corporate
sustainability.

KEYWORDS

corporate sustainability, environmental and social responsibility, individuals, managers,

personality traits, sustainability preferences

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N corporate sustainability (Alonso-­Almeida et al., 2017; Mazutis, 2013;

Individuals play a key role for corporate sustainability (e.g., Aragón-­
Correa et al., 2004; Broman et al., 2017). It is therefore unsurpris-
ing that in addition to studying corporate sustainability approaches
and practices from different theoretical and empirical perspectives
(e.g., Benn et al., 2014; Montiel, 2008), various researchers have
highlighted links between the characteristics of individuals and
Mudrack, 2007).
With their upper echelons theory, Hambrick and Mason (1984)
established a general link between characteristics of (senior) manag-
ers and firm outcomes (Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
Management not only directly influences a firm's outcomes through
strategic decision-­making, the choice and design of sustainability ac-
tivities, their funding and timelines, but also indirectly by defining

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-­NonCommercial-­NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-­commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2021 The Authors. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Business Ethics, Env & Resp. 2021;00:1–20.  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer | 1

2 |
responsibilities for implementation and providing guiding examples
for other members of the company (Schroeder, 2002; Schwartz
et al., 2005). Members of an organization look toward top managers
for guidance and are influenced by those managers’ values and be-
havior (Berson et al., 2008).
Importantly, not only senior management, but also mid-­
level
managers play an important role in shaping strategic decisions and
firm outcomes (e.g., Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Huy, 2002; Patel &
Holm, 2018; Wooldridge et al., 2008). The implementation of a sus-
tainability policy is, for example, mostly carried out by the middle
managers responsible for sustainability (Benn et al., 2014; Broman
et al., 2017). With their focus on sustainability, mid-­level managers
are expected to pay considerable attention to ethical issues in their
decision-­making and to possess ethical personality traits (Wright &
Nyberg, 2012).
The relationship between manager-­
specific personality traits,
particularly at the top executive level, and economic firm-­level out-
comes has been studied in detail (e.g., Bertrand & Schoar, 2003; Van
Scotter & de Déa Roglio, 2020), and there are initial studies on the
influence of top management personality traits on sustainability de-
cisions (Petrenko et al., 2016). However, the influence of personal-
ity traits of middle managers on their sustainability preferences has
not been analyzed in depth so far. This is somewhat surprising given
the potential and actual influence mid-­level sustainability manag-
ers have, the increasing pressure of organizations to meaningfully
advance their sustainability agenda and the importance of sustain-
ability to the well-­being of society; in particular, since “intangible
decisions like involvement in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
present a considerable opportunity for … decisions to be affected
by executive's characteristics because such actions rarely present a
situation where probabilities can be easily calculated or outcomes be
certain” (Petrenko et al., 2016).
We fill this gap by investigating, first, the prevalence of so-­called
“dark” personality traits among mid-­level sustainability managers.
Second, we propose measures to quantify their preferences for
aspects of environmental and social sustainability and analyze the
distribution of such preferences in a sample of sustainability manag-
ers. Third, we quantify the influence of dark personality traits among
mid-­level sustainability managers on their environmental and social
preferences.
Our study is informed by the “dark triad of personality” (Paulhus
& Williams, 2002), an established psychological theory that mea-
sures Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy as the most
prominent negative personality traits (Paulhus & Jones, 2015).
Existing research has highlighted the problems that may arise when
people with dark personality traits are at the top management level
(Babiak & Hare, 2006; Petrenko et al., 2016). Dark triad personality
traits have been connected with unethical decision-­making, lack of
guilt and remorse, and a sense of superiority (Babiak & Hare, 2006;
Boddy, 2006; Furnham et al., 2013; Hauser et al., 2021; Paulhus &
Williams, 2002; Stevens et al., 2012).
Considering their area of responsibility, mid-­level sustainability
managers should show weak dark personality traits and act more
PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER
ethically compared to other managers and individuals. As noted by
Hunoldt et al. (2020), the responsibilities of CSR managers include
establishing formal structures and/or changing existing ones, devel-
oping an understanding of the logic of corporate sustainability and
strengthening executives’ commitment to this logic. The values of
individual managers play an important role in this process of formally
adopting and implementing corporate sustainability (Hemingway &
Maclagan, 2004). In line with these findings, Ketola (2006) describes
how a corporation that is run by managers with psychopathic traits
may engage in environmentally damaging production practices, cre-
ate dangerous working conditions, disregard employment law, and
violate human rights conventions. It is thus surprising that no empir-
ical research so far has examined the prevalence of dark personality
traits among mid-­level sustainability managers.
We also study whether such personality traits have an influence
on the preferences of mid-­level sustainability managers for environ-
mental and social aspects of sustainability. In particular, we propose
two measures that allow us to quantify a manager's preferences
for different aspects of environmental and social sustainability,
such as policies, supply chains, action plans, management systems,
training, and monitoring. Specifically, our measure of environmen-
tal sustainability captures a manager's support and positiveness for
the company's corporate environmental sustainability policy, their
use of measurable targets and action plans to implement the pol-
icy, and their use of measures to monitor and report the company's
sustainability performance. Our measure of social sustainability
aspects captures a manager's support for the company's diversity
and equal opportunity policy, their support for employee health im-
provement programs and work-­life balance within the company, the
implementation of action plans to implement the policy, measures to
monitor performance, and internal communication tools to ensure
effective implementation. We analyze how sustainability managers
in our sample score on these measures for their sustainability pref-
erences. We also investigate whether or not mid-­level sustainabil-
ity managers with pronounced dark personality traits exhibit lower
environmental and social preferences. Given that managers do not
act in isolation but are embedded in and influenced by the business
environment, we furthermore investigate whether the explicit and
more socially oriented environment in the United States, compared
to Europe, will mitigate the impact of dark personality traits on sus-
tainability preferences.
By analyzing the influence of dark personality traits on corporate
sustainability, we extend existing knowledge of the motivations and
drivers of individual sustainability engagement at the organizational
level. Finally, we analyze whether the business environment and the
organizational context function as moderators of the influence of
personality traits on sustainability preferences.
Our research contributes to the existing literature as follows.
First, we challenge studies of corporate sustainability that explic-
itly or implicitly relate sustainability management to a specific ethi-
cal mindset (e.g., Burnes & By, 2012) by showing that sustainability
managers can possess surprisingly low sustainability preferences.
Second, we extend research on the personality characteristics of
PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER
top managers by providing the first study of whether dark person-
ality traits are distributed among middle sustainability managers to
a similar degree as among C-­level managers. Third, we provide the
first analysis of the influence of dark triad personality traits among
mid-­level sustainability managers on their environmental and social
preferences. Fourth, our cross-­cultural analysis between the United
States and Europe finds evidence that the business environment
mitigates the influence of dark personality traits on sustainability
preferences.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 dis-
cusses the related literature and develops our hypotheses. Section 3
explains our methodology and sample. The empirical results are pre-
sented in Section 4. Section 5 discusses the findings and concludes.
2 | R E L ATE D LITE R AT U R E A N D
H Y P OTH E S I S D E V E LO PM E NT
A review of the sustainability literature reveals that previous re-
search on personal sustainability attitudes and behavior has focused
on consumers (e.g., Moser, 2015), and mostly on specific pro-­social
or pro-­
environmental attitudes, intentions, and actions. These
consumer-­related studies, however, do not necessarily tell us any-
thing about the sustainability preferences of managers, who are ex-
pected to pursue corporate goals beyond their personal preferences.
2.1 | The relevance and concepts of personality
traits of managers for organizations
Corporate executives play an important role in strategic decision-­
making. Hambrick and Mason (1984), and a large body of literature
building on their upper echelons theory, argue that the personality
traits and personal values of senior executive decision makers influ-
ence how complex situations are analyzed and interpreted, which
consequently affects their strategic choices in response to environ-
mental stimuli (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). Based on this theo-
retical framework, senior executives’ personality traits, and personal
values are an important determinant of managerial decision-­making
(Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996).
Parks and Guay (2009) note that personal values and personal-
ity traits are distinct constructs, as values represent a psycholog-
ically embedded construct within the motivational complex, while
personality traits are innate or dispositional patterns exhibited by
individuals. Therefore, while personal background and experience
shape personal values, personality traits are to a large degree given
from birth and considered stable over a person's lifetime (McCrae &
Costa, 1994). Importantly, personality traits pertain to an individu-
al's natural tendencies (Parks-­Leduc et al., 2015) and have general
effects on behavior across various contexts and therefore help to
explain an extensive range of behaviors (Parks & Guay, 2009).
Research on the impact of managers’ personality traits on or-
ganizations is vast (e.g., Tang et al., 2015 on corporate innovation;
| 3
Malmendier & Tate, 2008 on corporate investment; de Colle &
Freeman, 2020 on ethical behavior within organizations). However,
even though the congruence of managerial and employee values
with organizational values is important for the effective implemen-
tation of sustainability measures (e.g., Fryxell & Lo, 2003), far less
attention has been paid to the impact of middle managers’ per-
sonality traits on corporate sustainability. Several studies note the
importance of studying the role of managers in corporate sustain-
ability (e.g., Aguinis & Glavas, 2012) and analyzing the impact of the
personal backgrounds and experiences of senior executives on cor-
porate sustainability decisions (e.g., Mazutis, 2013). The literature
provides evidence that CEO gender or field of study (Manner, 2010),
political affiliation (Di Giuli & Kostovetsky, 2014), international as-
signment experience (Slater & Dixon-­Fowler, 2009), and intellectual
stimulation (Waldman et al., 2006) have an effect on the sustainabil-
ity activities of firms.
Focusing on senior executives’ personality traits and sustainabil-
ity decisions, Tang et al. (2015) investigate how CEO hubris affects
the social engagement of firms. The authors show that CEO hubris is
negatively related to a firm's CSR activities, as overconfident manag-
ers perceive themselves to be less dependent on external stakehold-
ers and so are less motivated to pursue practices that will benefit
their stakeholders and less likely to take strategic decisions to im-
prove their company's environmental performance.
Middle managers play a key role in organizations as interfaces
between otherwise disconnected top and operating-­level managers
(Wooldridge et al., 2008). They are in contact with employees on a
regular basis and act as important motivators (Patel & Holm, 2018)
and can act as important agents of change (Huy, 2002). They are
active interpreters, mediators, and intermediaries in implementing
strategic change (Balogun, 2003; Balogun & Johnson, 2004). As mid-
dle managers decide which ideas are allocated resources, they have
a large impact on the implementation of strategic decisions, includ-
ing the actual design and implementation of corporate sustainability
projects. Ultimately, it is middle managers who decide which ideas
are translated into actions (Mollick, 2012). Thus, middle managers
with particular personality traits and positions inside the organiza-
tion play an important role in selecting projects (Burgelman, 1991).
Thus, it is not surprising that research has studied the influence of
middle managers on corporate entrepreneurship, innovation and or-
ganizational learning, strategy implementation, and strategy-­making
processes (Wooldridge et al., 2008). According to Wooldridge
et al. (2008, p. 1191), “this work shares the premise that middle man-
agers are central to explaining key organizational outcomes.”
2.2 | Dark personality traits of (middle)
managers and corporate sustainability
Personality traits play a fundamental role in the personal values
and preferences of individuals (Parks-­Leduc et al., 2015). Extant
research has emphasized the importance of a good match of fa-
vorable personal values with organizational sustainability values for
4 |
sustainability to be effectively considered and, in particular, for cor-
porate sustainability to be implemented (Berson et al., 2008). On the
other hand, dark personality traits are expected to conflict with high
organizational sustainability ambitions.
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy are the most
prominent negative personality traits discussed in the psychologi-
cal and management literature (Paulhus & Jones, 2015; Paulhus &
Williams, 2002). These dark triad personality traits are associated
with a tendency to self-­promotion, emotional coldness, unethical
decision-­making, a socially evil character, a lack of guilt and re-
morse, and a sense of superiority (Babiak & Hare, 2006; Furnham
et al., 2013; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). In the organizational con-
text, they are linked to job performance, team processes, citizen-
ship behavior, leadership, counterproductive workplace behaviors,
job attitudes, and negotiations (Cohen, 2016; LeBreton et al., 2018;
O'Boyle Jr. et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2016; Spain et al., 2014; Volmer
et al., 2016). Current personality and leadership literature suggest
that, due to their high need for power and their social dominance ori-
entation, dark triad personalities (i.e., Machiavellians, narcissists, and
psychopaths) are found relatively frequently in leadership positions
(Furtner et al., 2017).
Several typical characteristics of individuals with pronounced
dark personality traits are interpreted as important traits of an
effective leader (Babiak et al., 2010; Lubit, 2002; Mahaffey &
Marcus, 2006). For example, based on their trait as charming and
skilled manipulators, they tend to demonstrate good influence and
persuasion skills (Boddy, 2006; Neo et al., 2018). Individuals with
psychopathic traits are positively associated with charisma, effec-
tive presentation styles, strategic thinking, and creativity (Babiak
et al., 2010). Babiak and colleagues also note that a lack of em-
pathy and emotional poverty can easily be interpreted as being
“cool under fire,” which further opens the way to the top. In the
following, we take a closer look at the three components of the
dark triad personality trait to clarify their relevance for corporate
sustainability.
Christie and Geis (1970, p. 285) define Machiavellianism as “a
strategy of social conduct that involves manipulating others for per-
sonal gain.” Individuals with a pronounced Machiavellian trait are,
on average, more self-­interested and opportunistic (Gunnthorsdottir
et al., 2002), and exhibit less guilt (Murphy, 2012). They are also more
likely to cheat, manipulate others for their own gain and believe that
manipulation is an important key to success (Paulhus & Jones, 2015).
Machiavellianism is often accompanied by a lack of empathy, a focus
on pursuing one's own goals at the expense of others, and a view of
morality that offers a greater acceptance of behaviors that would
normally be described as immoral or unethical, such as exploiting
others (LeBreton et al., 2018).
Similar to individuals with pronounced Machiavellianism,
narcissists are associated with unethical behavior (Buss &
Shackelford, 1997; Menon & Sharland, 2011). Other key features of
narcissists include a sense of entitlement, dominance, and superior-
ity (Corry et al., 2008). They are more likely to have a propensity for
engaging in exploitative acts or behaviors and at the same time lack
PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER
empathy with a tendency toward callousness (LeBreton et al., 2018)
and are known for exploitative behaviors (LeBreton et al., 2018) and
for not feeling regret nor remorse (Vogel, 2006).
Lastly, similar to narcissists, (subclinical) psychopaths are said to
lack conscientiousness and feelings for others. They experience low
levels of empathy and remorse (Babiak & Hare, 2006), tend to make
unethical decisions (Stevens et al., 2012) and to use other people
(Boddy, 2006). As a result, they do as they please without any feel-
ing of guilt (Hare, 1999). Psychopathic individuals are characterized
as reckless, selfish, and aggressive (Patrick, 2007). Research shows
psychopaths more likely to pursue an irresponsible lifestyle and anti-
social or counterproductive behavior (Williams et al., 2007).
Harrison et al. (2018) argue that Machiavellianism, narcissism,
and psychopathy impact different parts of the unethical decision-­
making process. Machiavellianism motivates individuals to act un-
ethically and alter their perceptions about opportunities to deceive
others. Narcissism induces individuals to focus on their personal
benefit, while psychopathy helps individuals to rationalize their un-
ethical behaviors. The authors conclude that the three personality
traits “act in concert” (p. 53) as antecedents to unethical behavior. In
line with this finding, the literature notes several similarities among
the dark personality traits, such as unethical decision-­making, emo-
tional coldness, a lack of guilt and remorse and a sense of superiority
(Babiak & Hare, 2006; Boddy, 2006; Furnham et al., 2013; Paulhus &
Williams, 2002; Stevens et al., 2012).
In terms of organizational outcomes, Chatterjee and Hambrick
(2007) show that narcissistic CEOs favor actions that attract at-
tention. These bold actions result in extreme firm outcomes, both
positive and negative, thereby increasing the volatility of firm per-
formance. Narcissism has also been associated with CEO risk tak-
ing (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2011), firms’ reporting quality (Ham
et al., 2017), counterproductive work behaviors (Braun et al., 2018)
and fraud (e.g., Rijsenbilt & Commandeur, 2013). Machiavellianism
on the other hand has been associated with reduced support for
social and environmental reporting (Shafer & Lucianetti, 2018) and
the acceptance of corrupt behavior (Hauser et al., 2021). Mudrack
(2007) notes that persons who believe in a narrow view of corpo-
rate social responsibility—­that is, persons who believe that firms
should only contribute to society by maximizing profits—­often show
Machiavellian personality traits. Boddy (2011) argues that psycho-
paths working in leading positions in financial corporations signifi-
cantly contributed to causing the Global Financial Crisis.
Our knowledge of the link between environmental and social re-
sponsibility and dark personality traits of managers is limited to a few
recent pioneering contributions to the field. Petrenko et al. (2016)
study the impact of CEO narcissism on organizational sustainability
issues, hypothesizing that CEOs generate attention for themselves
by participating in charitable events and sustainability activities (see
also Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). They show that CEOs are often
personally positioned at the center of praise or criticism when it
comes to the social behaviors of their organizations. Thus, narcis-
sistic CEOs, who have an increased need for excessive attention and
admiration, are more likely to engage in representative corporate
PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER
social responsibility actions and communication. The increasing
awareness for sustainability among the general public (Galbreth &
Ghosh, 2013) may thus shape C-­level managers decision-­making
process and bring about more responsible decisions.
In contrast to C-­level managers who enjoy a much greater visi-
bility to outsiders and the general public, the audience of mid-­level
managers is largely restricted to company and industry insiders.
Given that the position of mid-­level managers does not promise
much external representation or media attention, this raises the
question how those with dark personality traits position themselves
on sustainability issues.
With regard to narcissism, we argue that mid-­level sustainabil-
ity managers with narcissistic personality traits can be expected to
engage in exploitative behaviors coupled with their lack of empathy
and a reduced interest in behaving in an environmentally and socially
responsible way (due to less media attention than C-­level managers
experience).
Shafer and Lucianetti (2018) focus on Machiavellianism and
support for sustainability reporting. They show that managers’ fun-
damental personality traits are important determinants of support
for social and environmental disclosures. Our study builds on their
findings and studies the importance of the dark triad, which includes
Machiavellianism, on social and environmental preferences, such as
for sustainability policy, the use of measurable targets and action
plans, and measures to monitor and report sustainability performance.
Marcus and Roy (2019) assess the role of core values and per-
sonality traits in relation to beneficial and harmful sustainability ac-
tions for a student sample and a national sample of English-­speaking
Canadians. They argue that altruistic orientation rooted in a prin-
ciple of fair treatment (measured with the personality factor
honesty–­humility of the HEXACO model) is deeply entwined with
sustainable behavior. They find that the personality dimension of
honesty–­
humility is a strong negative predictor of harmful sus-
tainability actions. We extend their work, as the dark triad “taps a
range of personality traits” beyond the HEXACO model (Jonason &
McCain, 2012, p. 935).
Extant literature largely focuses on the narcissism of board mem-
bers, particularly CEOs. This can mainly be explained by the visibil-
ity of board members and the ready availability of proxies for this
personality trait, such as signature size (Ham et al., 2018), the use
of first-­person pronouns (Raskin & Shaw, 1988) or the size of pho-
tos in annual reports (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). However, the
validity of these proxies for narcissism are being questioned (Carey
et al., 2015; Koch & Biemann, 2014). Also, readily available proxies
for the other two dark triad traits, Machiavellianism and psychopa-
thy, have yet to be discovered. For these reasons, we measure the
manifestation of the three dark personality traits using an estab-
lished scale in a questionnaire survey.
The influence of dark personality traits of mid-­level sustainability
managers has not so far been studied. Since sustainability managers
design and implement social and environmental projects, and activi-
ties, which are associated with a strong ethical and normative dimen-
sion, dark personality traits might not be expected to be prominent
| 5
among them. Furthermore, given their responsibilities, sustainability
managers with dark personality traits might still carefully consider
ethical issues in their decisions regarding sustainability. However,
as personality traits are considered stable over a person's lifetime
(McCrae & Costa, 1994) and to have general effects on behavior
(Parks & Guay, 2009), we expect mid-­level managers who score high
on the dark triad scale to express lower environmental and social
preferences. Therefore, we hypothesize:
H 1a Mid-­level sustainability managers with pronounced dark triad
personality traits display low environmental preferences.
H 1b Mid-­level sustainability managers with pronounced dark triad
personality traits display low social preferences.
2.3 | Business environment, personality traits, and
corporate sustainability
To complete the picture, we analyze the influence of moderating
factors of the business environment and the organizational con-
text on the relationship between personality traits and sustain-
ability preferences. The influence of managerial personality traits
on firm decisions has been documented to increase with mana-
gerial discretion (Li & Tang, 2010). Several empirical studies in-
formed by the upper echelons theory (Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick
& Finkelstein, 1987) provide evidence that the impact managers
have on firm outcomes increases with their discretionary latitude
(Crossland & Hambrick, 2007; Finkelstein & Boyd, 1988; Finkelstein
& Hambrick, 1990). Managerial discretion is also influenced by the
business environment (e.g., Carpenter & Golden, 1997). In line with
these findings, we hypothesize that the business environment will
moderate the impact of middle managers’ dark personality traits on
their sustainability preferences.
The business environments in the United States and Europe
are thought to be considerably different with regard to corporate
sustainability. In their seminal work on the influence of the busi-
ness environment on social responsibility, Matten and Moon (2008,
p. 409) identify two distinct elements, the “explicit” and the
“implicit” consideration of social responsibility. In a more strictly
regulated environment, as in Europe, the consideration of social and
environmental issues by companies is strongly driven by regulations
and is therefore implicitly integrated into the business. In the less
strictly regulated business environment in the United States, societal
expectations are that a company only considers sustainability if it
explicitly discloses its activities. The authors conclude that national
or regional differences may explain the choice for a more implicit or
explicit expression of corporate social responsibility. Maignan and
Ralston (2002) furthermore find that CSR strategies in the United
States are more socially oriented than in Europe. Given that manag-
ers do not act in isolation but are embedded in and influenced by the
business environment, we argue that the explicit and more socially
oriented environment in the United States will mitigate the impact of
dark personality traits on sustainability preferences.
6 |
Based on Matten and Moon's differentiation of implicit and ex-
plicit corporate social responsibility, Hypothesis 2 therefore states
that the business environment will function as a moderator on the
relationship between personality traits and sustainability prefer-
ences as socially unfavorable dark triad personality traits are likely
to be moderated by the explicit U.S. strategies. In the U.S. business
environment, which expects sustainability managers to be more ex-
plicit about their social and environmental decisions and activities,
the personality traits of sustainability managers can therefore be
expected to influence preferences and decisions less than in Europe.
The business environment functions as a moderator of the influence
of middle managers’ dark personality traits on sustainability prefer-
ences. Therefore, we hypothesize:
H 2a The influence of middle managers’ dark personality traits on
their environmental preferences is larger for European than
for U.S. companies.
H 2b The influence of middle managers’ dark personality traits on
their social preferences is larger for European than for U.S.
companies.
2.4 | Managerial discretion, personality traits, and
corporate sustainability
Hemingway and Maclagan (2004) observe that the personal values
of individual managers may influence how they design implementa-
tion to the extent those managers are able to exercise discretion.
Managerial discretion is influenced by various factors, including or-
ganizational context. And organizational context has been shown
to matter for managerial interpretations of environmental issues
(Sharma, 2000). We conclude that, in addition to the influence of
the business environment, organizational factors that influence the
discretionary freedom of actors may moderate the impact of mid-
dle managers’ personality traits on their sustainability preferences.
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H 3a The influence of middle managers’ dark personality traits on
their environmental preferences increases with their oppor-
tunity to exercise discretion.
H 3b The influence of middle managers’ dark personality traits on
their social preferences increases with their opportunity to
exercise discretion.
3 | M E TH O D O LO G Y A N D DATA S E T
The hypotheses in this study were derived from the review of extant
literature in Section 2. We adopted a quantitative survey method to
empirically investigate the relationship between managerial person-
ality traits and corporate sustainability. Using a survey allowed us
to gather data both on the ratings of personality traits and on per-
ceived sustainability preferences, which would otherwise not have
PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER
been possible. In this section, we describe the data collection, meas-
urement assessment, variables, and methods used for data analysis.
3.1 | Data collection
We collected information about personality traits of managers and
their environmental and social preferences with an online survey. As
the purpose of the study is to investigate the relationship between
managerial personality traits and corporate sustainability, we spe-
cifically targeted professionals who work for or report to the mid-­
level sustainability manager of their organization. We commissioned
Atheneum Partners to carry out the actual questioning of respond-
ents. Atheneum has an extensive database with over 400,000 indus-
try professionals, which allowed us to obtain a high-­quality sample.
The survey was executed with a self-­implemented online form in
English.
In order to be included in our survey, respondents had to report
to a supervisory manager who was responsible for sustainability is-
sues of the company (e.g., to the head of the CSR or sustainability
department). The restriction was included in the announcement of
the survey and determined with the first question of the question-
naire. Only participants answering “Yes” to the question whether
they work for or report to a supervisory sustainability manager were
allowed to continue the survey. We specifically targeted profession-
als from the United States and Europe. The invitation to the survey
was sent to 1000 professionals from Atheneum's database based on
the target group of the survey. The initial response rate was 56%,
53.2% of which were disqualified because they did not answer “Yes”
to the qualifying question; 10.6% of respondents did not complete
all questions of the survey; 204 questionnaires were completed and
used for the analysis. As an incentive to take part in the survey, a
small payment was made to 10% of the respondents.
The units of analysis are the sustainability preferences of middle
managers with decision-­making authority. Importantly, we did not
directly ask the managers about their preferences and personality
traits, but their subordinates (e.g., Mutschmann et al., 2020). Thus,
we surveyed employees whose immediate superiors were middle
managers with decision-­making authority regarding sustainability
issues. We recognize that the relationship between managers and
their subordinates (i.e., whether this relationship is positive and
productive or influenced by conflict and miscommunication) may
affect how a subordinate perceives their manager's preferences and
personality. However, a wide array of psychology research under-
lines the value and accuracy of third-­party ratings (e.g., Connelly &
Ones, 2010; Oh et al., 2011), as personality traits are readily observ-
able (Rokeach, 1985) and dark personality traits are typically noticed
first by subordinates (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Moreover, the use of
an informant-­scale approach with guaranteed anonymity reduces the
risk of the results being affected by a social desirability bias (Crowne
& Marlowe, 1964) and response distortion (Kerin & Peterson, 1977).
Lastly, under the assumption that some respondents’ relation-
ships to their supervisors are positive and others are negative,
PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER
misperceptions about manager's preferences would increase stan-
dard errors, but not bias our results (Atanasov & Black, 2016), while
misperceptions about the manager's personality would bias coeffi-
cient estimates toward zero (Atanasov & Black, 2016).
This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional ethics
review board of a participating institution.
3.2 | Measurement assessment
The questionnaire for sustainability preferences of managers was
based on items used by Refinitiv (formerly Thomson Reuters) to
create its ESG scores (available in Eikon Datastream). As the da-
tabase has been extensively used in research (e.g., Semenova &
Hassel, 2015), we decided to create our questionnaire based on
these items. We do not claim, however, that our questionnaire repli-
cates the ESG scores of companies involved in the survey. The dirty
dozen scale (Jonason & Webster, 2010), a 12-­item personality inven-
tory, was used for assessing the dark triad personality traits. The
questionnaire contained a total of 64 items (see Appendix).
Reliability as the internal consistency of the items within each
construct of this study was assessed by observing Cronbach's alpha.
Face and content validities of the social and environmental respon-
sibility items were assessed in a pre-­test with 19 professionals from
the field. Construct validity comprising convergent and discriminant
validities of the measurements for sustainability preferences and
personality trait constructs was evaluated by exploratory factor
analysis using a principal components analysis.
3.3 | Variables
3.3.1 | Environmental responsibility
We asked the participants to judge their superior manager's envi-
ronmental preferences using a set of 16 questions on a 5-­item Likert
scale ranging from “Yes, very much” to “No, not at all.” To acquire
information about the strength of preferences (lower or higher pref-
erences), the questions targeted the manager's support and posi-
tiveness for the company's corporate environmental sustainability
policy, the manager's use of measurable targets and action plans to
implement the policy, and the use of measures to monitor and report
the sustainability performance of the company (see the Appendix
for the list of questions). For each participant, we aggregated the
answers to a single variable using the arithmetic average. The factor
analysis shows that the 16 questions provide excellent internal reli-
ability and consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .97).
3.3.2 | Social responsibility
We elicited a manager's social preferences in the same way as for
environmental preferences. We asked the participants to rate their
| 7
manager's social preferences using a set of nine questions on the
same 5-­item Likert scale. Questions referred to the manager's sup-
port for diversity and equal opportunity policy, employee health
improvement programs and work-­life balance within the company,
the implementation of policy action plans, measures to monitor per-
formance, and internal communication tools to ensure effective im-
plementation (see the Appendix for the list of questions). For each
participant, we aggregated the answers to a single variable, which
measures social responsibility with excellent internal consistency
(Cronbach's alpha = .92).
3.3.3 | Dark triad personality
We asked the participants to judge their superior middle manager's
personality using the dirty dozen scale (Jonason & Webster, 2010).
The scale comprises three 4-­item subscales for Machiavellianism,
narcissism, and (subclinical) psychopathy. The dirty dozen scale is
used and validated to measure dark triad personality scales (Miller
et al., 2012; Webster & Jonason, 2013). We chose the dirty dozen
scale instead of the short dark triad scale proposed by Jones and
Paulhus (2014), as the latter includes questions that are inappropri-
ate in a professional setting (i.e., ‘I get angry if someone turns down
having sex with me’.). We disguised the dirty dozen scale by includ-
ing a number of positively loaded items assessing general leadership
behavior and other personality traits and randomizing the question
order to alleviate a possible bias of negatively framed questions.
With a value of Cronbach's alpha of .92, the internal consistency of
the dark triad measure is excellent.
Harman's single-­factor test shows that three factors are nec-
essary to account for the variance in the variables, with one factor
capturing environmental responsibility, one factor social responsi-
bility and one factor dark triad personality. The social responsibil-
ity questions regarding fair trade labels and certification with social
management systems loaded more on the environmental than on
the social responsibility factor. The three factors allow 60% of the
cumulative variance to be explained. We did not observe any item
from the dark triad personality scale loading on the environmental
or social responsibility factor, mitigating concerns about common
method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Overall, concurrent and
convergent validity was at an adequate level.
3.3.4 | Firm size
We followed Hambrick and Finkelstein (1987), who argue that firm
size is a major determinant of managerial discretion. Specifically,
large organizations are more likely to have established formal
routines and structures (Nelson & Winter, 1982), which leave less
scope for managerial discretion (see also Li & Tang, 2010). We thus
asked participants about the amount of sales (annual revenue) and
the number of employees at the company they work for based on
two eight-­level categorical variables. With this information, we
8 | PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER

created two dummy variables “medium-­sized” and “large”, indi- TA B L E 1 Observations per country
cating that a firm is below or above median size in our sample.
Country N
Medium-­sized firms have up to 5000 employees and less than
France 8
$100 million in sales.
Germany 27
Italy 23

3.3.5 | Managers’ age Spain 26

United Kingdom 21
Along similar lines of reasoning, we argue that a manager's age is United States 99
a valid proxy measure for the discretionary leeway of a manager.
Specifically, we argue that older managers enjoy more managerial
TA B L E 2 Observations per industry
discretion because of their seniority and because they are less driven
by career development concerns. Thus, we asked participants about Industry N
their age on a 6-­item scale indicating various age groups. Based on
Agriculture, forestry, fishing 5
this information, we create two dummy variables “age ≤ 45” and “age
Finance, insurance, real estate 13
> 45”, indicating that a supervisor is below or above median age in
Manufacturing 50
our sample.
Mining 1
Public administration 9

3.4 | Data analysis Retail trade 24

Services 57

We estimated the following main model using a standard ordinary Transportation & public utilities 10
least squares (OLS) model with robust standard errors to account for Wholesale trade 5
heteroscedasticity: Unclassified industry 30

J
∑
responsibilityi = a + b dark personalityi + cj controlsij + ei
j=1
Control variables included demographic controls of the manager
(a dummy for male managers and a full set of age category dummies)
and firm controls (such as a full set of firm country dummies, a full
set of firm industry dummies, a full set of dummies for the number of
employees, and also for firm sales).
In addition, we estimated several models with interactions to in-
vestigate hypotheses 2 and 3. To simplify the interpretation of our
additional analyses, we included the relevant dummy (i.e., United
States, Europe, medium-­sized, large, age ≤ 45, and age > 45) of the
interaction, and the dark triad variable for both values of the dummy.
This approach simplifies readability of the effect sizes and captures
the entire domains of both the dark triad and the relevant dummy.
3.5 | Sample composition
The sample of this study comprises a total of 204 professionals
from the United States and Europe. Table 1 shows the distribution
of respondents across countries. Table 2 depicts the distribution of
respondents across different industries. Respondents are well dis-
tributed across industries. The largest number of respondents are
from services and from manufacturing industries. Table 3 shows the
sales (measured in USD across all participants) and number of em-
ployees of the companies in our sample. As we specifically targeted
firms with a sustainability manager and we cannot assume that such
a function exists in small firms, our sample does not contain small
firms.
4 | R E S U LT S
Table 4 displays descriptive statistics for the main variables used in
this study, and Table 5 shows correlations between the main vari-
ables. Given that we collected information on mid-­level managers
who are responsible for sustainability, it is notable that our sample
of sustainability managers reveals that approximately 10% of the
sample (21 managers) score low on the environmental responsibil-
ity variable with scores lower than 2 on a 5-­point scale (see also
Figure 1). While our sample also includes managers who score values
lower than 2 on the social responsibility scale (7 managers, or 3.4%
of the sample), the number of managers with low scores on this scale
is significantly lower compared to the environmental responsibility
variable. Nonetheless, our first finding indicates that mid-­level sus-
tainability managers do not invariably possess strong sustainability
preferences. On the contrary, a remarkable number of mid-­level sus-
tainability managers show low sustainability preferences.
The correlation between the environmental and the social re-
sponsibility measures is high (r = .72), which indicates that many man-
agers are seen to have a certain level of sustainability preferences in
general. We do not observe significant differences in environmental
and social preferences between middle managers from the United
States and Europe. Social responsibility exhibits a slightly higher
PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER | 9

TA B L E 3 Observations per firm size mean in the US sample; however, according to a Mann–­Whitney U
test, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the distributions of
Panel A: Sales
our variables are from the same population.
Sales N The distribution of the dark triad measure (see Figure 2) and
$0–­$999,999 29 its components is comparable to previous studies (e.g., Jones &
$1,000,000–­$ 4,999,999 20 Paulhus, 2014). We find that 5.4% of the managers in our sample
$5,000,000–­$ 9,999,999 8 exhibit pronounced dark personality traits with a score on the dirty
$10,000,000–­$ 99,999,999 30 dozen scale larger than 4, which is in line with the average prev-

$100,000,000–­$999,999,999 30 alence of dark personality traits found in other managerial sam-

ples (e.g., Babiak et al., 2010; Boddy, 2011; Chiaburu et al., 2013;
$1,000,000,000–­$ 4,999,999,999 27
Lubit, 2002). While the distribution of narcissism is fairly symmetric
$5,000,000,000–­$9,999,999,999 18
(see Figure 2, Panel c), the distributions of Machiavellianism and psy-
$10,000,000,000 or above 42
chopathy (see Figure 2, Panels b and d) show a larger number with
Panel B: Employees low scores of 1 and 2, compared to high scores of 4 and 5. These dis-
Employees N tributions are comparable to distributions of the dark triad measure
and components previously reported in the literature (e.g., Jones &
51–­250 29
Paulhus, 2014). Our second finding therefore reveals that mid-­level
251–­500 14
sustainability managers do not necessarily possess more ethical per-
501–­1000 17
sonality traits than managers in general.
1001–­5000 27
Bivariate correlations provide initial support for our hypotheses,
5001–­10,000 53 showing statistically significant negative correlations between the
10,001–­25,000 17 dark triad personality scale and both the environmental responsi-
25,001 or more 47 bility measure and the social responsibility measure, respectively.

TA B L E 4 Summary statistics

Variable N Mean SD Min q25 Median q75 Max

Panel A: All data

Environmental responsibility 204 3.392 1.086 1.000 2.609 3.562 4.250 5.000
Social responsibility 204 3.803 0.916 1.000 3.194 4.000 4.556 5.000
Dark triad 204 2.642 0.869 1.000 2.000 2.667 3.167 5.000
Machiavellianism 204 2.485 1.012 1.000 1.500 2.500 3.200 5.000
Narcissism 204 3.001 0.868 1.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 5.000
Psychopathy 204 2.439 0.973 1.000 1.500 2.500 3.000 5.000
Panel B: United States
Environmental responsibility 99 3.422 1.083 1.000 2.750 3.562 4.250 5.000
Social responsibility 99 3.914 0.827 1.000 3.333 4.000 4.556 5.000
Dark triad 99 2.584 0.897 1.000 1.833 2.667 3.167 4.583
Machiavellianism 99 2.465 1.024 1.000 1.500 2.500 3.200 5.000
Narcissism 99 2.957 0.884 1.000 2.500 3.000 3.750 5.000
Psychopathy 99 2.331 0.998 1.000 1.500 2.500 3.000 4.750
Panel C: Europe
Environmental responsibility 105 3.362 1.094 1.000 2.500 3.500 4.250 5.000
Social responsibility 105 3.699 0.985 1.000 3.000 4.000 4.444 5.000
Dark triad 105 2.696 0.842 1.083 2.083 2.667 3.167 5.000
Machiavellianism 105 2.505 1.004 1.000 1.800 2.500 3.000 5.000
Narcissism 105 3.043 0.854 1.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 5.000
Psychopathy 105 2.540 0.942 1.000 1.800 2.500 3.000 5.000
10 | PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER

TA B L E 5 Pearson's correlation table

Environmental Social Dark

responsibility responsibility triad Machiavellianism Narcissism Psychopathy Employees

Social 0.72**
responsibility
Dark triad −0.18* −0.32**
Machiavellianism −0.13 −0.25** 0.93**
Narcissism −0.19** −0.29** 0.88** 0.73**
Psychopathy −0.18* −0.35** 0.92** 0.81** 0.71**
Employees 0.10 0.08 −0.06 −0.08 −0.03 −0.04
Sales 0.16* 0.15* −0.09 −0.07 −0.06 −0.12 0.77**

Note: ** and * denote significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.

Hypothesis 1a. The coefficient on male is statistically not different

F I G U R E 1 Distribution of the environmental and social
responsibility variables
Significant negative correlations exist between our responsibility
measures and the dark triad components (except between environ-
mental responsibility and Machiavellianism).
To formally test the hypotheses, we turn to the multivariate anal-
ysis and estimate Equation 1 using OLS. With regard to Hypotheses
1a, Table 6 presents our regression results of the dark triad person-
ality measure on managers’ environmental responsibility. Model 1
omits control variables and reports a negative coefficient of −.22
on the dark triad. With a t-­statistic of 2.38 the null hypothesis that
the coefficient is equal to zero is rejected. Thus, the model provides
support for Hypothesis 1a that managers who score high on the dark
triad personality scale exhibit lower environmental responsibility.
In Model 2 of Table 6, we add additional control variables for the
firms’ country, industry, annual sales, and number of employees as
well as for the managers’ gender and age. The coefficient on dark
triad remains robust (−.20, t-­statistic 2.08), providing support for
from zero (t-­statistic .33), indicating that female and male sustain-
ability managers do not have systematically different environmental
preferences.
Next, we turn to Hypothesis 1b and the relationship between
managers’ dark triad personality characteristics and their social pref-
erences. Table 7 reports the results of our OLS estimations using
Equation 1. Model 1 focuses solely on the relationship between dark
triad and social responsibility and displays a negative coefficient of
−.34. The coefficient is statistically significant with a t-­statistic of
4.31.
Considering the distribution of the social responsibility variable,
this effect accounts for approximately 9% of the mean and is there-
fore highly significant. The model thus provides strong support for
our Hypothesis 1b that managers who score high on the dark triad
personality scale are less concerned with social responsibility issues.
Model 2 of Table 7 adds control variables to the regression
model. The coefficient of dark triad remains virtually unchanged.
Additionally, the model provides evidence that gender does not sys-
tematically influence managers’ social preferences, as the male coef-
ficient is not statistically different from zero (t-­statistic: .72).
Next, we turn to the moderating function of specific environ-
mental and organizational factors. We begin with Hypothesis 2a and
determine whether the business environment functions as a mod-
erator of the influence of middle managers’ dark personality traits
on sustainability preferences. We interact dark triad with a dummy
variable for firms located in the United States. To simplify interpret-
ability of the results, we report the coefficients for dark triad in U.S.
firms (dark triad * US) and for dark triad in European firms (dark triad
* Europe) separately. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 8.
Model 1 focuses on environmental responsibility and shows a neg-
ative coefficient (−.36; t-­statistic 3.09) only for European firms. For
the United States, the coefficient is −0.09, which is not statistically
different from zero. Model 2 analyzes social responsibility. Here, a
similar picture emerges. While we observe a statistically significant
negative coefficient for European firms (−0.57, t-­statistic of 5.71),
the coefficient for U.S. firms is again not statistically different from
zero. This indicates that the relationship between the dark triad
PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER
FIGURE 2 Distribution of the dark triad personality measure and its composites
personality measure and environmental responsibility is significantly
less pronounced in the United States. These findings yield support
for Hypothesis 2: The business environment functions as a moder-
ator of the influence of middle managers’ dark personality traits on
sustainability preferences.
Lastly, we study the moderating impact of organizational fac-
tors. Table 9 summarizes the analyses on Hypothesis 3a and 3b.
In Panel A, we interact dark triad with the dummy variables for
medium-­sized and large firms and again estimate Equation 1, hold-
ing the managerial position constant. This allows us to compare
executives of different ages at the same level of organizational re-
sponsibility. Model 1 analyzes environmental responsibility. Here,
we find a negative coefficient on dark triad only for mid-­sized firms
(−0.25, t-­s tatistic of 2.03), whereas the coefficient for large firms
is statistically not different from zero (t-­s tatistic of 1.50). Model 2
analyzes social preferences. We observe a negative coefficient for
dark triad for mid-­sized firms (−0.43, t-­s tatistic 3.88) and for large
firms (−0.26, t-­statistic 2.44), with the effect being significantly
larger for medium-­sized firms (t-­test, p-­value <.01). This indicates
| 11
that, on average, managers with a pronounced dark triad person-
ality in medium-­sized firms are significantly less concerned with
social responsibility issues.
In Panel B of Table 9, we turn to the manager's age as a proxy
for managerial discretion. Again, Model 1 studies environmental
responsibility and Model 2 social responsibility. While we observe
significantly negative coefficients for dark triad * age > 45 (−.4986
and −.5818, with t-­statistics of 4.31 and 5.76, respectively), coef-
ficients for dark triad * age ≤45 are not statistically different from
zero (t-­statistics: .46 and 1.08, respectively). Taken together with the
results using the firm size proxy, these findings yield strong support
for Hypothesis 3: Managerial discretion functions as a moderator of
the influence of middle managers’ dark personality traits on sustain-
ability preferences.
Additional (untabulated) analyses reveal a highly consistent re-
lationship between dark personality traits and all types of corpo-
rate sustainability aspects included in our measures, that is, policies,
supply chains, action plans, management systems, training, and
monitoring.
12 | PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER

TA B L E 6 The effect of managerial dark triad personality on TA B L E 8 Dark personality traits and the business environment
environmental responsibility
US vs. Europe
Model 1 Model 2
Model 1 Model 2
Environmental Environmental
responsibility responsibility Environmental Social
responsibility responsibility
(Intercept) 3.9762** 2.5765**
(Intercept) 4.3405** 5.2480**
(15.8576) (2.9804)
(13.2145) (20.7782)
Dark triad −0.2213* −0.1978*
Dark triad * US −0.0866 −0.1033
(−2.3826) (−2.0802)
(−0.6212) (−1.0457)
Male 0.0795
Dark triad * Europe −0.3628** −0.5744**
(0.3333)
(−3.0902) (−5.7110)
Firm controls No Yes
US −0.6944 −1.0675**
Age dummies No Yes
(−1.4072) (−2.9799)
Estimation OLS OLS
2
Adj. R 0.0294 0.1490
R2 0.0313 0.2171
Num. obs. 204 204
Num. obs. 204 204
Note: Standard errors are robust (MacKinnon & White, 1985);
Note: Firm controls include dummy variables for country, industry,
t-­statistics are in parentheses. ** and * denote significance at the 1%
annual sales, and number of employees. Standard errors are robust
and 5% levels, respectively.
(MacKinnon & White, 1985); t-­statistics are in parentheses. ** and *
denote significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.
be found among mid-­level managers responsible for sustainability,
as for leadership positions in general (e.g., Furtner et al., 2017). Thus,
TA B L E 7 The effect of managerial dark triad personality on
social responsibility neither the mid-­level position nor the responsibility for sustainabil-
ity influence the distribution of dark triad personality traits. Second,
Model 1 Model 2
contrary to expectations, sustainability managers do not always
Social Social show strong environmental and social preferences. Third, sustain-
responsibility responsibility ability managers with pronounced dark personality traits are less
(Intercept) 4.6948** 4.2231** concerned about both environmental and social issues than manag-
(24.0310) (5.5654) ers with less pronounced dark personality traits. While dark person-
Dark triad −0.3374** −0.3159** ality traits influence the level of sustainability concern, they do not,

(−4.3080) (−3.7840)
however, influence the type of sustainability preferences (social or
environmental) of decision makers.
Male −0.1466
The high levels of consistency found for mid-­level managerial
(−0.7232)
sustainability preferences show that dark triad personality traits do
Firm controls No Yes
not influence sustainability management with regard to support for
Age dummies No Yes
specific types of activities. The detailed analysis of the relationships
Estimation OLS OLS
between dark personality traits and the individual components of
R2 0.1025 0.2378 our sustainability measures (policy preferences, supply chains, ac-
Num. obs. 204 204 tion plans, management systems, training, and monitoring) show
Note: Firm controls include dummy variables for country, industry, a highly consistent relationship for all measures. Our analyses re-
annual sales, and number of employees. Standard errors are robust veal that dark personality traits have a similar influence on each of
(MacKinnon & White, 1985); t-­statistics are in parentheses. ** and * these sustainability preferences. This indicates that while more pro-
denote significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.
nounced dark personality traits are related to an overall lower level
of sustainability preference they do not lead to different types of
Table 10 summarizes the findings of our hypotheses to facilitate sustainability preferences.
the following discussion. The empirical findings furthermore indicate the potential for
tension between board members and middle management with re-
gard to the level of sustainability preferences. The expression of low
5 | D I S CU S S I O N sustainability preferences by our group of middle managers with
strong dark triad personality traits may indicate potential tension in
Our study provides several important findings. First, dark triad per- a firm's organizational hierarchy. More ambitious board members or
sonalities (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) can also those with narcissistic CEOs may favor sustainability activities, as
PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER | 13

they attract media attention, as opposed to middle managers with and sustainability preferences is less pronounced for the United
comparable personality traits who have less strong sustainability States than for Europe, corresponding to the thesis of Matten and
preferences in general. Moon (2008) that corporate social responsibility is exercised more
Third, the societal business environment plays an important mod- explicitly in the United States and more implicitly in Europe. Our
erating function. The relationship between dark personality traits finding could thus be explained by the smaller discretionary space
allowed sustainability managers—­which would restrict the effects
TA B L E 9 Dark personality traits and managerial discretion
of managers with dark personality traits—­in a societal environment
Model 1 Model 2 requiring businesses to be more explicit about their sustainability
activities. This finding is in line with analyses based on institutional
Environmental Social
Responsibility responsibility theory suggesting that institutional pressure influences the sustain-
ability engagement of companies (Delmas & Toffel, 2004) and that
Panel A: Medium-­sized vs. large firms
isomorphism affects the choice of sustainability management meth-
(Intercept) 4.0776** 4.5946**
ods (Windolph et al., 2014).
(10.3425) (17.0491)
Fourth, our analysis indicates that personal discretionary latitude
Dark triad * medium-­sized −0.2497* −0.4292**
may influence how strongly dark personality traits influence sustain-
(−2.0303) (−3.8806) ability preferences among managers. Using company size and age as
Dark triad * large −0.2123 −0.2572* proxies reveals that sustainability managers with pronounced dark
(−1.5035) (−2.4402) triad personalities in medium-­sized companies are less concerned
Medium-­sized −0.1238 0.2469 about sustainability than their counterparts in larger companies. As
(−0.2426) (0.6442) large companies often face strong public pressure (e.g., Wolf, 2014),
Adj. R 2
0.0275 0.1088 dark personality traits of sustainability managers face more socie-

Num. obs. 204 204 tal restrictions in larger than in medium-­sized companies. In turn,
fewer restrictions in medium-­sized companies allows sustainability
Panel B: Age
managers with dark triad personalities to be less concerned about
(Intercept) 3.4479** 4.2233**
environmental and social issues. Also, more established routines and
(7.7875) (13.0304)
structures in larger companies (e.g., Nelson & Winter, 1982) place
Dark triad * Age > 45 −0.4989** −0.5823**
greater restrictions on the personality traits of managers.
(−4.3269) (−5.7668)
Our analysis furthermore shows that older managers with pro-
Dark triad * Age ≤ 45 0.0381 −0.1008 nounced dark triad personality traits are less concerned about sus-
(0.3103) (−1.1518) tainability. Younger managers may face more restrictions as they
Age > 45 1.1720** 1.00329** still have to prove themselves to be accepted and promoted in the
(2.4649) (2.9614) organization. Dark personality traits therefore show more effect
Managerial position Yes Yes among older sustainability managers who enjoy larger discretionary
Adj. R 2
0.0788 0.1767 latitude.
Num. obs. 204 204 Our analysis complements earlier studies on the personality
traits of CEOs. Middle managers serve as important interfaces be-
Note: Standard errors are robust (MacKinnon & White, 1985); t-­
statistics are in parentheses. ** and * denote significance at the 1% and
tween otherwise disconnected top and operating-­level managers,
5% levels, respectively. and they act as important agents of change. Corporate sustainability

TA B L E 1 0 Summary of hypotheses

Hypothesis Empirical evidence

H1a: Mid-­level sustainability managers with pronounced dark triad personality traits display low environmental Support of hypothesis
preferences
H1b: Mid-­level sustainability managers with pronounced dark triad personality traits display low social preferences Support of hypothesis
H2a: The influence of middle managers’ dark personality traits on their environmental preferences is larger for European Support of hypothesis
than for U.S. companies
H2b: The influence of middle managers’ dark personality traits on their social preferences is larger for European than for Support of hypothesis
U.S. companies
H3a: The influence of middle managers’ dark personality traits on their environmental preferences increases with their Support of hypothesis
opportunity to exercise discretion
H3b: The influence of middle managers’ dark personality traits on their social preferences increases with their Support of hypothesis
opportunity to exercise discretion
14 | PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER
can only be effective if mid-­level sustainability managers act in an
engaged and constructive manner as interpreters, mediators, and
intermediaries in implementing strategic change. As middle manag-
ers decide which ideas actually receive resources, they have a large
impact on the implementation of strategic decisions, including how
corporate sustainability projects and activities are actually designed
and implemented. A company pursuing sustainability goals beyond
symbolic action therefore needs to explicitly consider the person-
ality traits of its mid-­level sustainability managers to create a good
match with organizational values, culture, and goals.
The personality of sustainability managers is not alone in de-
termining their environmental and social preferences. Several
non-­psychological factors such as the regulatory environment, the
(institutional) culture, education and training, and professional sus-
tainability management practices are likewise important influences
on how corporate sustainability is designed and implemented (e.g.,
Anku-­Tsede & Deffor, 2014; Waddock & Smith, 2000; Wang &
Juslin, 2009). Importantly, such nonpsychological factors may act as
crucial factors that (at least partially) reinforce or mitigate the influ-
ence of personality traits on environmental and social preferences.
Investigating such interactions in future research could provide im-
portant insights into the design of future regulatory interventions to
promote sustainability.
6 | CO N C LU S I O N S
A number of conclusions for public policy and corporate governance,
for corporate sustainability research and education as well as for
theory testing can be drawn from this empirical analysis.
Concerning public and corporate policies, requiring explicit cor-
porate sustainability performance—­that is, companies articulating,
measuring, and reporting their sustainability contributions explicitly
and clearly—­can be expected to mitigate the impact of dark person-
ality traits of managers on corporate sustainability. Currently, many
requirements for sustainability reporting are relatively formal and fo-
cused on processes, completeness of indicators communicated, etc.
This opens options for middle managers to act as gatekeepers and
to select how relevant information is passed on to top management
(Schaltegger & Zvezdov, 2015). While a policy focus on processes
and information completeness may support the establishment of
environmental and social management systems in organizations, it
leaves greater discretionary leeway with regard to how sustainabil-
ity is implemented in a company. Thus, public policies and accounting
standards requiring the explicit disclosure, review and verification
of actual performance with regard to acknowledged societal goals
(such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals or plan-
etary boundaries, see, e.g., Schaltegger, 2018) could channel dark
personality traits and lead to more substantial sustainability per-
formance improvements. The conclusion that explicit sustainability
performance requirements can help to mitigate dark personality
traits of middle managers responsible for sustainability can also be
drawn from the cross-­cultural analysis between the United States
and Europe. The empirical results indicate that the explicit and more
socially oriented environment in the United States mitigates the im-
pact of dark personality traits on sustainability preferences.
For corporate practice, our analysis suggests that candidates ap-
plying for sustainability management positions may also score high on
dark triad personality traits. The human resources department could
make a key contribution to responsible leadership by explicitly assess-
ing personality traits when hiring. Management assessment tests, par-
ticularly for young high potentials (Lindgreen et al., 2011), should take
personality traits explicitly into account. Organizations that are able to
identify, recruit, retain, and promote employees with stronger sustain-
ability preferences and work to improve social and environmental out-
comes are more likely to achieve their sustainability goals (e.g., Marcus
& Roy, 2019). Furthermore, a strong organizational culture where
sustainability is emphasized with clear sustainability performance-­
oriented incentives can moderate how strongly dark personality traits
influence the sustainability preferences of managers.
Furthermore, as dark personality traits were found for 5.4% of
the mid-­level sustainability managers, they would be expected to
collaborate with managers without dark personality traits. Future
research could analyze how such collaboration influences the sus-
tainability preferences and activities of mid-­
level managers with
dark personality traits.
From a research perspective, our study provides evidence that
the role and the development of mid-­level sustainability manage-
ment needs more attention. However, this is the case for managers
at all levels and in all departments dealing with sustainability and
sustainability information (Schaltegger et al., 2015). Future research
on educating managers for sustainability could investigate how
personality traits relate to sustainability management competen-
cies (e.g., Hesselbarth & Schaltegger, 2014), in particular, the inter-
play between personality traits and management competencies in
change agents for sustainability.
For educational and training programs for sustainability manag-
ers, our study raises a number of questions. How should personality
traits be considered in the assessment of candidates for sustain-
ability management positions? What role should personality traits
beneficial to sustainability engagement play when training change
agents for sustainability? Can educational programs help students to
identify their own personality traits and guide their career choices,
steering them away from work that may be problematic for them and
their employer?
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
The authors are grateful for the helpful comments and suggestions
from Dima Jamali (the editor), Marco Bellucci (the associate editor),
two anonymous referees, Jacob Hörisch, and Ilka Weissbrod. Open
access funding enabled and organized by ProjektDEAL.
DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T
The data that support the findings of this study are openly avail-
able in Mendeley Data, V1 at https://data.mende​ley.com/resea​
rch-­d ata/?searc​ h =Raw%20dat​a%3A%20Dar​k %20tri​a d%20and​
PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER
%20cor​porat​e%20sus​t aina​bility, reference number https://doi.
org/10.17632/​b3zjp​r wsmb.1.
ORCID
Matthias Pelster https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5740-2420
Stefan Schaltegger https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7756-5526
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about cor-
porate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal
of Management, 38(4), 932–­968. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492​
06311​436079
Alonso-­Almeida, M., Perramon, J., & Bagur-­ Femenias, L. (2017).
Leadership styles and corporate social responsibility management.
Analysis from a gender perspective. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 26(2), 147–­161.
Anku-­Tsede, O., & Deffor, E. W. (2014). Corporate responsibility in
Ghana: An overview of aspects of the regulatory regime. Business
and Management Research, 3(2), 31–­41. https://doi.org/10.5430/
bmr.v3n2p31
Aragón-­Correa, J. A., Matías-­Reche, F., & Senise-­Barrio, M. E. (2004).
Managerial discretion and corporate commitment to the natural
environment. Journal of Business Research, 57(9), 964–­975. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0148​-­2963(02)00500​-­3
Atanasov, V., & Black, B. (2016). Shock-­based causal inference in cor-
porate finance and accounting research. Critical Finance Review, 5,
207–­3 04.
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to
work. Regan Books.
Babiak, P., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2010). Corporate psychopathy:
Talking the walk. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(2), 174–­193.
Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential:
Creating change intermediaries. British Journal of Management,
14(1), 69–­83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­8551.00266
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and mid-
dle manager sensemaking. The Academy of Management Journal,
47(4), 523–­549.
Benn, S., Dunphy, D. C., & Griffiths, A. (2014). Organizational change for
corporate sustainability (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture
and firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(5), 615–­
633. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.499
Bertrand, M., & Schoar, A. (2003). Managing with style. The effect of
managers on firm policies. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
118(4), 1169–­1208.
Boddy, C. R. (2006). The dark side of management decisions:
Organisational psychopaths. Management Decision, 44(10), 1461–­
1475. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251​74061​0715759
Boddy, C. R. (2011). The corporate psychopaths theory of the global fi-
nancial crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 255–­259. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s1055​1-­011-­0 810-­4
Braun, S., Aydin, N., Frey, D., & Peus, C. (2018). Leader narcissism pre-
dicts malicious envy and supervisor-­targeted counterproductive
work behavior: Evidence from field and experimental research.
Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 725–­741. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s1055​1-­016-­3224-­5
Broman, G., Robèrt, K.-­H., Collins, T. J., Basile, G., Baumgartner, R. J.,
Larsson, T., & Huisingh, D. (2017). Science in support of system-
atic leadership towards sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production,
140(Part 1), 1–­9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2016.09.085
Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy mak-
ing and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research.
| 15
Organization Science, 2(3), 239–­262. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.​
2.3.239
Burnes, B., & By, R. T. (2012). Leadership and change: The case for greater
ethical clarity. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 239–­252. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s1055​1-­011-­1088-­2
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in the
first year of marriage. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 193–­
221. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2175
Carey, A. L., Brucks, M. S., Küfner, A. C. P., Holtzman, N. S., Große
Deters, F., Back, M. D., Donnellan, M. B., Pennebaker, J. W., & Mehl,
M. R. (2015). Narcissism and the use of personal pronouns revis-
ited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), e1–­e15.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0​0 00029
Carpenter, M. A., & Golden, B. R. (1997). Perceived managerial discre-
tion: A study of cause and effect. Strategic Management Journal,
18(3), 187–­206.
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It’s all about me: Narcissistic
chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy
and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 351–­386.
https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.3.351
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). Executive personality, capabil-
ity cues, and risk taking: How narcissistic CEOs react to their suc-
cesses and stumbles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 202–­
237. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018​39211​427534
Chiaburu, D. S., Muñoz, G. J., & Gardner, R. G. (2013). How to spot a ca-
reerist early on: Psychopathy and exchange ideology as predictors
of careerism. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 473–­486.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in machiavellianism. New York:
Academic Press.
Cohen, A. (2016). Are they among us? A conceptual framework of the re-
lationship between the dark triad personality and counterproduc-
tive work behaviors (CWBs). Human Resource Management Review,
26(1), 69–­85.
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). Another perspective on person-
ality: Meta-­analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predic-
tive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1092–­1122. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0021212
Corry, N., Merritt, R. D., Mrug, S., & Pamp, B. (2008). The factor struc-
ture of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 90(6), 593–­600. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223​89080​
2388590
Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). How national systems differ in
their constraints on corporate executives: A study of CEO effects
in three countries. Strategic Management Journal, 28(8), 767–­789.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.610
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evalua-
tive dependence. Wiley.
de Colle, S., & Freeman, R. E. (2020). Unethical, neurotic, or both? A
psychoanalytic account of ethical failures within organizations.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 29, 167–­179. https://doi.
org/10.1111/beer.12239
Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. W. (2004). Stakeholders and environmental man-
agement practices: An institutional framework. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 13(4), 209–­ 222. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bse.409
Di Giuli, A., & Kostovetsky, L. (2014). Are red or blue companies more
likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibil-
ity. Journal of Financial Economics, 111(1), 158–­180. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jfine​co.2013.10.002
Finkelstein, S., & Boyd, B. K. (1988). How much does the CEO matter?
The role of managerial discretion in the setting of CEO compensa-
tion. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(2), 179–­199.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-­management-­team tenure
and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial
16 | PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER
discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 484–­503. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2393314
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top execu-
tives and their effects on organizations. West.
Fryxell, G. E., & Lo, C. W. (2003). The influence of environmental knowl-
edge and values on managerial behaviours on behalf of the envi-
ronment: An empirical examination of managers in China. Journal of
Business Ethics, 46(1), 45–­69.
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of
personality: A 10-­ year review. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 7(3), 199–­216.
Furtner, M. R., Maran, T., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2017). Dark leadership:
The role of leaders’ dark triad personality traits. In M. G. Clark &
C. W. Gruber (Eds.), Leader development deconstructed (pp. 75–­99).
Springer.
Galbreth, M. R., & Ghosh, B. (2013). Competition and sustainability: The
impact of consumer awareness. Decision Sciences, 44(1), 127–­159.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-­5915.2012.00395.x
Gunnthorsdottir, A., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (2002). Using the machi-
avellianism instrument to predict trustworthiness in a bargaining
game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(1), 49–­66. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0167​- ­4870(01)00067​-­8
Ham, C., Lang, M., Seybert, N., & Wang, S. (2017). CFO narcissism and
financial reporting quality. Journal of Accounting Research, 55(5),
1089–­1135. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-­679X.12176
Ham, C., Seybert, N., & Wang, S. (2018). Narcissism is a bad sign:
CEO signature size, investment, and performance. Review of
Accounting Studies, 23(1), 234–­264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1114​
2-­017-­9427-­x
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. The Academy
of Management Review, 32(2), 334–­3 43. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.2007.24345254
Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge
between polar views of organizational outcomes. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 9, 369–­4 06.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organiza-
tion as a reflection of its top managers. The Academy of Management
Review, 9(2), 193–­206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628
Hare, R. D. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psycho-
paths among us. The Guilford Press.
Harrison, A., Summers, J., & Mennecke, B. (2018). The effects of the dark
triad on unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 153, 53–­77.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055​1-­016-­3368-­3
Hauser, C., Simonyan, A., & Werner, A. (2021). Condoning corrupt be-
havior at work: What roles do machiavellianism, on-­the-­job experi-
ence, and neutralization play? Business & Society, 60(6), 1468–­1506.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00076​50319​898474
Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers' personal values
as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,
50(1), 33–­44. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.00000​20964.80208.c9
Hesselbarth, C., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Educating change agents for
sustainability: Learnings from the first sustainability management
master of business administration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62,
24–­36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2013.03.042
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the
dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40–­51.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-­2389.00162
Hunoldt, M., Oertel, S., & Galander, A. (2020). Being responsible: How
managers aim to implement corporate social responsibility. Business
& Society, 59(7), 1441–­1482. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076​50318​
777738
Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and
radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31–­69.
Jonason, P. K., & McCain, J. (2012). Using the HEXACO model to test
the validity of the dirty dozen measure of the dark triad. Personality
and Individual Differences, 53, 935–­938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2012.07.010
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure
of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–­432. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0019265
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad
(SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1),
28–­41. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731​91113​514105
Kerin, R. A., & Peterson, R. A. (1977). Personalization, respondent ano-
nymity, and response distortion in mail surveys. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 62(1), 86–­89. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-­9010.62.​
1.86
Ketola, T. (2006). From CR-­psychopaths to responsible corporations:
Waking up the inner sleeping beauty of companies. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13, 98–­106. https://
doi.org/10.1002/csr.113
Koch, I., & Biemann, T. (2014). Signs of narcissism of CEO’s: Validating a
widely used measure. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1),
16134. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2014.16134​abstract
LeBreton, J. M., Shiverdecker, L. K., & Grimaldi, E. M. (2018). The dark
triad and workplace behavior. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 387–­ 414. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annur​ev-­orgps​ych-­03211​7-­104451
Li, J., & Tang, Y. (2010). CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: The
moderating role of managerial discretion. Academy of Management
Journal, 53(1), 45–­68. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48036912
Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., Harness, D., & Hoffmann, M. (2011). The role of
“high potentials” in integrating and implementing corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 73–­91. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s1055​1-­011-­1168-­3
Lubit, R. (2002). The long-­term organizational impact of destructively
narcissistic managers. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(1),
127–­138. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2002.6640218
MacKinnon, J. G., & White, H. (1985). Some heteroskedasticity-­
consistent covariance matrix estimators with improved finite sam-
ple properties. Journal of Econometrics, 29(3), 305–­325. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0304-­4 076(85)90158​-­7
Mahaffey, K. J., & Marcus, D. K. (2006). Interpersonal perception of psy-
chopathy: A social relations analysis. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 25(1), 53–­74. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2006.25.​
1.53
Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in
Europe and the US: Insights from businesses’ self-­presentations.
Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497–­514. https://doi.
org/10.1057/palgr​ave.jibs.8491028
Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2008). Who makes acquisitions? CEO over-
confidence and the market’s reaction. Journal of Financial Economics,
89(1), 20–­43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfine​co.2007.07.002
Manner, M. H. (2010). The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate
social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 53–­72. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s1055​1-­010-­0626-­7
Marcus, J., & Roy, J. (2019). In search of sustainable behaviour: The role
of core values and personality traits. Journal of Business Ethics,
158(1), 63–­79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055​1-­017-­3682-­4
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A concep-
tual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate so-
cial responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–­424.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193458
Mazutis, D. D. (2013). The CEO effect: A longitudinal, multilevel analy-
sis of the relationship between executive orientation and corpo-
rate social strategy. Business & Society, 52(4), 631–­6 48. https://doi.
org/10.1177/00076​50313​490510
PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1994). The stability of personality:
Observations and evaluations. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 3(6), 173–­175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­8721.ep107​
70693
Menon, M. K., & Sharland, A. (2011). Narcissism, exploitative attitudes,
and academic dishonesty: An exploratory investigation of reality
versus myth. Journal of Education for Business, 86(1), 50–­55. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08832​32100​3774772
Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Seibert, L. A., Watts, A., Zeichner, A., & Lynam,
D. R. (2012). An examination of the Dirty Dozen measure of psy-
chopathy: A cautionary tale about the costs of brief measures.
Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 1048–­1053.
Mollick, E. (2012). People and process, suits and innovators: The role
of individuals in firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,
33(9), 1001–­1015. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1958
Montiel, I. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and corporate sus-
tainability: Separate pasts, common futures. Organization &
Environment, 21(3), 245–­269. https://doi.org/10.1177/10860​26608​
321329
Moser, A. K. (2015). Thinking green, buying green? Drivers of pro-­
environmental purchasing behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
32(3), 167–­175. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-­10-­2014-­1179
Mudrack, P. (2007). Individual personality factors that affect norma-
tive beliefs about the rightness of corporate social responsibility.
Business & Society, 46(1), 33–­62. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076​
50306​290312
Murphy, P. R. (2012). Attitude, machiavellianism and the rationalization
of misreporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(4), 242–­
259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.04.002
Mutschmann, M., Hasso, T., & Pelster, M. (2021). Dark triad managerial
personality and financial reporting manipulation. Journal of Business
Ethics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s1055​1-­021-­0 4959​-­1
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change.
Harvard University Press.
Neo, B., Sellbom, M., Smith, S. F., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2018). Of boldness
and badness: Insights into workplace malfeasance from a triarchic
psychopathy model perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(1),
187–­205.
O'Boyle, E. H., Jr., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A.
(2012). A meta-­a nalysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior:
A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
97(3), 557–­579.
Oh, I.-­S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings of
the five-­factor model of personality traits: A meta-­analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 762–­773. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0021832
Parks, L., & Guay, R. P. (2009). Personality, values, and motivation.
Personality and Individual Differences, 47(7), 675–­684. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.002
Parks-­Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and
personal values: A meta-­analysis. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 19(1), 3–­29. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888​68314​538548
Patel, T., & Holm, M. (2018). Practicing mindfulness as a means for en-
hancing workplace pro-­environmental behaviors among managers.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(13), 2231–­
2256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640​568.2017.1394819
Patrick, C. J. (2007). Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy. In
W. O'Donohue, K. A. Fowler, & S. O. Lilienfeld (Eds.), Personality
disorders: Toward the DSM-­V (pp. 109–­166). Sage.
Paulhus, D. L., & Jones, D. N. (2015). Measures of dark personalities. In
G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of per-
sonality and social psychological constructs (pp. 562–­594). Academic
Press.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality:
Narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research
| 17
in Personality, 36(6), 556–­563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092​
-­6566(02)00505​-­6
Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. (2016). Corporate social
responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organiza-
tional performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 262–­279.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2348
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-­Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical re-
view of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–­903. https://doi.org/10.1037/002
1-­9010.88.5.879
Raskin, R., & Shaw, R. (1988). Narcissism and the use of personal
pronouns. Journal of Personality, 56(2), 393–­ 4 04. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-­6 494.1988.tb008​92.x
Rijsenbilt, A., & Commandeur, H. (2013). Narcissus enters the courtroom:
CEO narcissism and fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 413–­429.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055​1-­012-­1528-­7
Rokeach, M. (1985). Inducing change and stability in belief systems and
personality structures. Journal of Social Issues, 41(1), 153–­171.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-­4560.1985.tb011​23.x
Schaltegger, S. (2018). Linking environmental management accounting. A
reflection on (missing) links to sustainability and planetary bound-
aries. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 38(1), 19–­29.
Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R., Zvezdov, D., Hörisch, J., & Tingey-­Holyoak, J.
(2015). Management roles and sustainability information: Exploring
corporate practice. Australian Accounting Review, 25(4), 328–­3 45.
https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12102
Schaltegger, S., & Zvezdov, D. (2015). Gatekeepers of sustainability in-
formation: Exploring the roles of accountants. Journal of Accounting
& Organizational Change, 11(3), 333–­361. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JAOC-­10-­2013-­0 083
Schroeder, D. (2002). Ethics from the top: Top management and ethi-
cal business. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(3), 260–­267.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­8608.00284
Schwartz, M. S., Dunfee, T. W., & Kline, M. J. (2005). Tone at the top:
An ethics code for directors? Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1/3), 79–­
100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055​1-­0 05-­1390-­y
Semenova, N., & Hassel, L. G. (2015). On the validity of environmental
performance metrics. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 249–­258.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055​1-­014-­2323-­4
Shafer, W. E., & Lucianetti, L. (2018). Machiavellianism, stakeholder ori-
entation, and support for sustainability reporting. Business Ethics: A
European Review, 27, 272–­285. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12187
Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational con-
text as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681–­697.
Slater, D. J., & Dixon-­Fowler, H. R. (2009). CEO international assign-
ment experience and corporate social performance. Journal of
Business Ethics, 89(3), 473–­489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055​
1-­0 08-­0 011-­y
Smith, M. B., Craig Wallace, J., & Jordan, P. (2016). When the dark ones
become darker: How promotion focus moderates the effects
of the dark triad on supervisor performance ratings. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 236–­254.
Spain, S. M., Harms, P., & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). The dark side of person-
ality at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S41–­S60.
Stevens, G. W., Deuling, J. K., & Armenakis, A. A. (2012). Successful psy-
chopaths. Are they unethical decision-­makers and why? Journal of
Business Ethics, 105(2), 139–­149.
Tang, Y., Li, J., & Yang, H. (2015). What I see, what I do: How executive
hubris affects firm innovation. Journal of Management, 41(6), 1698–­
1723. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492​06312​4 41211
Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. (2015). How CEO hubris affects
corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal,
36(9), 1338–­1357. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2286
18 | PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER

Van Scotter, J. R., & de Déa Roglio, K. (2020). CEO bright and dark per-
sonality: Effects on ethics misconduct. Journal of Business Ethics, How to cite this article: Pelster, M., & Schaltegger, S. (2021).
164, 451–­475.
The dark triad and corporate sustainability: An empirical
Vogel, C. (2006). A field guide to narcissism. Psychology Today, 39, 68–­74.
Waddock, S., & Smith, N. (2000). Corporate responsibility audits: Doing analysis of personality traits of sustainability managers.
well by doing good. Sloan Management Review, 2000, 75–­83. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 00, 1–­20.
Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12398
CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibil-
ity. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1703–­1725. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-­6 486.2006.00642.x
Wang, L., & Juslin, H. (2009). The impact of Chinese culture on corporate APPENDIX A
social responsibility: The harmony approach. Journal of Business QUESTIONNAIRE
Ethics, 88, 433–­451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055​1-­0 09-­0306-­7
You are about to participate in an academic study where you will be
Webster, G. D., & Jonason, P. K. (2013). Putting the “IRT” in “dirty”: Item
response theory analyses of the dark triad dirty dozen—­An effi- asked questions about the organization that you work for. Your par-
cient measure of narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavellianism. ticipation is completely anonymous, and your identity is not known.
Personality and Individual Differences, 54(2), 302–­3 06. https://doi. There are no right or wrong answers. We would, therefore, kindly
org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.027
ask you to be as truthful as possible.
Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the four-­
factor structure of psychopathy in college students via self-­report. Do you work for or report to a supervisory sustainability manager?
Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 205–­221. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00223​89070​1268074 • Yes
Windolph, S. E., Schaltegger, S., & Herzig, C. (2014). Implementing corporate
• No
sustainability. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal,
5(4), 378–­404. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ​-­01-­2014-­0002 • No, I am the highest sustainability officer in the organization
Wolf, J. (2014). The relationship between sustainable supply chain man- • I don't know
agement, stakeholder pressure and corporate sustainability per-
formance. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(3), 317–­328. https://doi.
What is your professional position in the organization you work for?
org/10.1007/s1055​1-­012-­1603-­0
Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. (2008). The middle manage-
ment perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, • Manager CSR/corporate sustainability/EHS
and future research. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1190–­1221. • Other employee with decision-­making power
https://doi.org/10.1177/01492​06308​324326
• Not a managing position
Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2012). Working with passion: Emotionology,
corporate environmentalism and climate change. Human Relations,
65(12), 1561–­1587. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187​26712​457698 In which industry are you employed?

AU T H O R B I O G R A P H I E S • Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing (01–­09)

• Mining (10–­14)
Matthias Pelster is Full Professor for Finance at Paderborn • Construction (15–­17)
University, Germany. He earned his doctoral degree in Finance • Manufacturing (20–­39)
at TU Dortmund University in June 2013 and was awarded the • Transportation & Public Utilities (40–­49)
prize for the best dissertation of the Department of Business and • Wholesale Trade (50–­51)
Economics at TU Dortmund University. He has been a visiting • Retail Trade (52–­59)
researcher at the Stern School of Business, New York University, • Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (60–­67)
and the Deutsche Bundesbank, among others. His research fo- • Services (70–­89)
cuses on behavioral finance and financial risk management. • Public Administration (91–­99)
• Unclassified industry
Stefan Schaltegger, PhD, is Full Professor for Sustainability
Management and head of the Centre for Sustainability How many employees work in the organization you work for?
Management (CSM) at Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany.
In 2003 he founded the worldwide first MBA in Sustainability • 1–­50
Management. His research focuses on corporate sustainability, • 51–­250
stakeholder theory, sustainable entrepreneurship, measuring • 251–­500
sustainability performance (sustainability accounting, man- • 501–­1000
agement control), and practices of sustainability management. • 1001–­5000
According to the Stanford ranking of scientists 2020, Stefan is • 5001–­10,000
among the two percent most cited researchers in the environ- • 10,001–­25,000
mental and management field. • 25,001 or more
PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER
What is the annual sales revenue of the organization you work
for?
• $0–­$999,999
• $1,000,000–­$ 4,999,999
• $5,000,000–­$9,999,999
• $10,000,000–­$99,999,999
• $100,000,000–­999,999,999
• $1,000,000,000–­4,999,999,999
• $5,000,000,000–­$9,999,999,999
• $10,000,000,000 or above
Please rate the following statements regarding the preferences
of your sustainability supervisor (“your boss”) concerning the fol-
lowing practices and approaches. Your responses are completely
anonymous.
On a scale from:
Yes, very much.
Yes, partially.
Neither yes nor no.
No, not to some extent.
No, not at all.
◦ S/he is convinced of your company's corporate environmental
sustainability policy and likes to refer to it.
◦ S/he actively supports that your company has an environmental
product innovation policy (e.g., dealing with eco-­design, life cycle
assessment, and dematerialization) and likes to refer to it or use it.
◦ S/he actively supports and works with measurable targets and
an action program to secure implementation of an environmental
product innovation policy.
◦ S/he actively supports and works with an annual action plan with
projects and measures to implement an environmental policy.
◦ S/he actively supports and uses environmental criteria (energy
consumption, sustainability labels, etc.) in the selection or evalua-
tion process of suppliers or sourcing partners.
◦ S/he actively supports and uses measures and management ap-
proaches to deal with economic business risks and opportunities
of the company's greenhouse gas emissions.
◦ S/he actively supports the company to have or maintain a struc-
tured training program on environmental issues for employees.
◦ S/he actively supports and works with one or several certified en-
vironmental management systems (e.g., ISO 14001, EMAS, etc.).
◦ S/he actively supports and works with one or several environ-
mental product certification systems (e.g., organic product label).
◦ S/he actively supports that your company stops partnerships with
suppliers or establishes intense supplier development programs,
if environmental criteria are not met.
◦ S/he actively supports and works with company internal commu-
nication tools (whistle blower, ombudsman, suggestion box, hot-
line, newsletter, intranet, etc.) to ensure effective implementation
of the environmental management program.
| 19
◦ S/he actively supports that your company has or should have a
publicly reported sustainability commitment from a senior man-
agement or board member.
◦ S/he actively supports that your company reports or should re-
port on its environmental expenditures and investments to re-
duce future risks or to increase future opportunities
◦ S/he actively supports that your company has or should have a
sustainability report, and that it is or should be either externally
audited, produced on the basis of the GRI guideline or that it re-
ceives an award.
◦ S/he actively supports that the company reports or should report
on partnerships or initiatives with specialized NGOs, industry
organizations, governmental, or supra-­national organizations, fo-
cused on improving environmental issues.
◦ S/he actively tries to prevent that your company gets confronted
with media controversies about environmental impacts of your
company.
◦ S/he actively supports that your company has a diversity and
equal opportunity policy
◦ S/he actively supports that your company has a policy to improve
employee health & safety and/or work-­
life balance within the
company.
◦ S/he actively supports that your company has or should have a
policy to consider social issues (incl. exclusion of child, forced, or
compulsory labor) in its supply chains.
◦ S/he actively supports that your company has or should have an
annual action plan with projects and measures to implement its
social policy?
◦ S/he actively supports that your company uses social criteria (fair
trade labels, etc.) in the selection process of its suppliers or sourc-
ing partners.
◦ S/he actively supports that your company is certified with one or
several social management systems (e.g., SA 8000, family friendly
employer, etc.).
◦ S/he actively supports that your company has skills training or ca-
reer development of its employees.
◦ S/he actively supports that your company explicitly measures and
manages the economic business risks and opportunities of social
issues.
◦ S/he actively supports that your company has internal communi-
cation tools (whistle blower, ombudsman, suggestion box, hotline,
newsletter, intranet, etc.) to ensure effective implementation of
the social management program.
To what degree do you agree with the following statements about
your sustainability supervisor (“your boss”).
Scale:
• Disagree strongly
• Disagree moderately
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree moderately
• Agree strongly
20 | PELSTER and SCHALTEGGER

◦He/she is dependable or self-­disciplined ◦ He/she is conventional or uncreative

◦ He/she lets group members know what is expected of them ◦ He/she tends to seek prestige and status
◦ He/she tends to manipulate others to get his/her way ◦ He/she tends to be cynical
◦ He/she is anxious or easily upset ◦ He/she tends to exploit others towards his/her own end
◦ He/she maintains definite standards of performance ◦ Before making decisions, he/she gives serious consideration
◦ He/she is disorganized or careless to what his/her subordinates have to say
◦ He/she has a desire to be admired ◦ He/she tends to expect special favors from others
◦ He/she tends to lack remorse ◦ He/she asks subordinates for suggestions on what assign-
◦ He/she asks that the group members follow standard rules ments should be made
and regulations ◦ He/she wants others to pay attention to him/her
◦ He/she is extraverted or enthusiastic ◦He/she is calm or emotionally stable
◦ He/she is friendly and polite What is the gender of your supervisor?
◦ He/she tends to be unconcerned with the morality of his/her
actions • Male
◦ He/she uses deceit or lies to get his/her way • Female
◦ He/she puts suggestions made by the group into operation • X
◦ He/she is sympathetic or warm
◦ He/she is open to new experiences What is the age of your supervisor?
◦ He/she gives advance notice of changes
◦ He/she tends to be callous or insensitive • 18 to 24
◦ He/she uses flattery to get his/her way • 25 to 34
◦ He/she is reserved or quiet • 35 to 44
◦ He/she keeps to himself • 45 to 54
◦ He/she tends to be critical or quarrelsome • 55 to 64
◦ He/she looks out for the personal welfare of group members • 65 or over
◦ He/she is willing to make changes