Ever since the argument over CSR began, detractors and supporters have been arguments for the opinion of CSR and the arguments against the definition of CSR. The case against the definition of CSR typically begins with the classical economic argument by the late Milton Friedman (1962). Friedman indicates that management has one responsibility which is maximize the profits of its shareholders and owners. Friedman states that social issue are not the concern for business people and these kind of problem should solved by the free market system and unfettered workings. If free market system cannot solve this kind of problems, it falls not upon companies, but upon government and legislation to do a job. Another objection to corporate social responsibility has been that companies are not equipped to handle social activities. This position holds that managers are consistent towards operation and finance and do not have social skills to make social oriented decision (Davis, 1973). A third objection is that companies already have enough power, and it is impossible for the companies place in its hands the chance to use additional power, like social power (Davis, 1973). A fourth argument against CSR is it reduces company’s primary purpose (Hayek, 1969). A fifth argument, by pursuing corporate social responsibility, companies should make itself less competitive globally. The most influential critic is Noble Prize winner Milton Friedman, who claims that CSR is squander of stockholder’s money. While, a lot of article claims an opposite opinion about CSR that it can be increase a company’s financial performance in the long-term run. The EU believe that CSR also can promote regions and even the country’s reputation， in Europe, there are many countries are committed to promoting enterprise to set up with the enterprise culture of CSR, make the region more attractive to investors, the area of the market products have more positive brand image.