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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.