This study selected the top 100 companies from the manufacturing sector at the Shanghai Stock Exchange by (MC) for a period of 10 years (2012–2021)
The selection of only top firms by market cap invites selection bias: these firms are more likely to have resources and institutional pressures that support CSR behaviour and stakeholder engagement. This may inflate the observed positive relationship between CSR and performance and may not reflect firms with fewer resources.
This study was restricted to a sample of the top 100 companies by market capitalization in the SSE and six proxies for CSR practices.
The authors themselves acknowledge the restricted sample and proxy choice, which is a good transparency point. Still, it signals that applying the findings to smaller firms, other sectors, or different countries may be limited.
The study has chosen the top 100 companies by market capitalization from the manufacturing sector on the Shanghai Stock Exchange for a period of 10 years (2012–2021). The reason for choosing this unique blend of manufacturing companies is that, every year, the authorities of the Shanghai stock market issue a list of top companies in terms of higher market capitalization.
The sample is clearly defined as the top 100 manufacturing firms over a decade, which is substantial in size and length. However, because the sample is restricted to large manufacturing firms in one country and one stock exchange, the “population” of firms is quite narrow
The result showed that CSR has a significant positive effect on FP, i.e., corporate sustainable development
This finding supports the study’s core claim that stakeholder-centred CSR correlates with better firm performance. Yet, the presentation could benefit from more detail: effect-sizes, confidence intervals, and varying contexts aren’t deeply discussed in the quoted sentence. Without that nuance, the result might appear more definitive than warranted.
We further conducted panel data analysis to explore the association between CSR and Firm’s performance.
Though the study doesn’t highlight overt commercial funding, the institutional context (large listed firms in China) and the use of government subsidies as a moderator hint at potential institutional/incentive bias. The authors report that government subsidies (“Sub”) positively moderate CSR-firm-performance link — this suggests firms receiving subsidies may have different motivations, which might bias the results toward favourable CSR-outcomes.
While this study concludes that, along with profit maximization, the firm is duly responsible for benefitting all of their stakeholders, which ultimately boosts the economic well-being and long-term value creation of the CSR-practicing firms [119].
This admission is useful, but the authors stop short of detailed discussion of endogeneity concerns, or variable confounds like regulatory changes or industry shifts. Recognizing but not deeply exploring these limitations means readers should remain cautious about how strongly they interpret causality.
While the arrogance of youth was definitely present, I also knew that I was not trained to do large-scale empirical/statistical work, However I thought that the clinical approach of Freud and his followers
Freeman argues that his clinical and philosophical training, combined with his work at Bell Companies, provided the ideal method for SMASA. The logic is plausible, as he links his experience to the book’s methodology. However, the argument assumes that these combined approaches automatically yield meaningful insights without showing how or why they reliably produce valid conclusions.
Growing up fairly poor on a dirt farm in central Georgia, I took it as one of life's truths that one needed to be responsible for the effects of one's action on others. I needed to be sensitive to those I could 'affect' and those I could be 'affected by'.
Freeman emphasizes his lifelong commitment to stakeholder theory and ethical responsibility, which adds normative weight to the argument. A stronger version would integrate this personal insight with empirical evidence showing how stakeholder-focused practices tangibly improve businesses and society. Combining narrative with data would make the argument more persuasive to skeptical readers.
A second weakness was to focus a chapter on internal stakeholders. This was since in all of my clinical work, the executives leaped to the conclusion that they had internal stakeholders as well. There is some usefulness here, but it is also misleading from the standpoint of making businesses more sensitive to the external stakeholders.
The term “internal stakeholders” is somewhat vague and could confuse readers about the scope of stakeholder theory. Freeman admits it may be misleading, which highlights the need for precise definitions. Defining “internal” versus “external” stakeholders and explaining why the focus may mislead would make the argument clearer.
In many of the chapters in the book, I would put the ideas a bit differently today but that is the price of a book written nearly 40 years ago, However, SMASA also has many weaknesses, I think that the most glaring one is the imposition of a strategic planning framework on the book.
Freeman acknowledges weaknesses in SMASA while also defending its enduring relevance. While generally consistent, there is minor tension between admitting flaws and asserting the book’s continued authority. Clarifying how the book’s strengths outweigh its weaknesses would improve internal consistency and reader trust.
I was most disappointed some years later when Lee Preston and Tom Donaldson published an article that people understood as separating Normative, Descriptive, and Instrumental stakeholder research. In fact, I argued in a paper around the same time that this was a misinterpretation of this important paper.
Here, Freeman challenges interpretations that separate normative, descriptive, and instrumental approaches. He risks a straw man fallacy by portraying Preston and Donaldson’s work as a misinterpretation without fully engaging with their arguments. A more rigorous critique would explain precisely why the separation is flawed rather than dismissing it broadly.
basic logic of the book is that if we use the vocabulary of 'stakeholders', we will have a better understanding of how businesses actually work and create value, and how they can work better.
Freeman’s premise that using the stakeholder vocabulary improves understanding of business is reasonable but not universally provable. While stakeholder theory has influenced management, it may not always lead to better outcomes in every context. The claim is sound as a general observation, but acknowledging limitations or exceptions would strengthen credibility.