The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged a long time ago and has continued to growth in its importance and significance. It has become a widely accepted concept between business practitioners and theorists. However, the definition of CSR seems to be unclear to many people and has been constantly challenged by business theorists. According to Banerjee (2007), CSR required companies to think beyond making profit and to pay attention toward social and environmental issues and act in a proper manner and establish integrity and transparency in all operations they undertaken. The CSR pyramid provided one of the mostly used conceptions in today’s world. It consists of economics, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. Economics and legal responsibilities are thought to be compulsory responsibilities which mean businesses are legally obliged to make profit and follow the law. On the other hand, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities are considered as optional which means they fall within the control of managerial judgment and therefore influenced by factors such as personal values, principles and ideologies. In my own opinion, yes, CSR does hides undermining issues of environmental objectives. This is due to several reasons. CSR only addresses environmental issues indirectly and has only been consider as an appropriate issue recently. According to Dalhsrud (2006), the CSR definition failed to address the environmental issues or often not mentioned in the definition. Apart from that, the inclusions of environmental issues in CSR definition are only given based on the ethical arguments by the stakeholder. Environmental issues may only be listed down by the companies in response to the pressure from the stakeholders. This include requirement from the government regulations, activists shareholders putting pressure on the management,