Objective: This study pursues three main objectives: (1) a comprehensive identification of the mental drivers and contextual factors influencing the intentions and actions of charitable investors; (2) the classification and mapping of the interdependencies among these factors to reveal causal-analytical pathways leading to the final decision; and (3) providing theoretical and practical implications for designing policies and strategies to attract charitable investments in educational and entrepreneurial projects. To this end, the main research question was formulated as: "What are the key drivers and factors influencing the decision-making of charitable investors in academic social projects, and how is the structure of relationships among them?"

Method: This applied study was carried out with an exploratory–causal approach within the philosophical framework of critical realism. A systematic review of studies published between 2005 and 2024 initially identified 13 factors. Using an ISM relationship questionnaire and the input of 10 philanthropic investors, the list was refined to 18 final factors. A SSIM was then constructed, and the ISM hierarchy was derived; finally, MICMAC analysis was employed to evaluate each factor’s driving power and dependence. Data were collected from December 2023 through June 2024.

Finding: The ISM results showed that the identified factors fall into four main categories: (a) fundamental drivers, social responsibility, ethical values, and basic trust in the university institution, positioned at the hierarchy's lowest level and possessing the highest influence power; (b) internal intermediary mechanisms such as personal joy and satisfaction from helping others, past successful experience, and perceived social impact; (c) external context‑sensitive variables, including project structural transparency, the reputation and operational capacity of the faculty, and mechanisms for reporting social impact; and (d) the autonomous variable “government policies,” which, although recognized in the literature as influential, showed no significant direct or indirect effect on investment decisions in the sample and was therefore placed at the edge of the MICMAC matrix. Pathway analysis revealed that social responsibility, alongside basic trust, initiates the decision‑making chain and, by enhancing past successful experience and inner joy, strengthens perceived social impact. This impact, coupled with project transparency and faculty reputation, ultimately has the strongest causal link with investment intention.

Results: The first theoretical implication of the study is that, contrary to the linear view of charitable behavior, the causal flow in charitable investors' decision-making is not a simple internal-external dichotomy but has a layered structure in which fundamental mental drivers act as the energy source, and external variables function as switches that regulate the possibility or speed of converting that energy into actual action. Secondly, the weak position of government support policies indicates that, in the social investment space related to higher education, the perceived credibility of the implementing institution and financial accountability mechanisms are more important than subsidies or exemptions from the National Development Fund. This finding aligns with and extends the trust theory, as it shows that "institutional trust" precedes "joy/satisfaction drivers," and without it, philanthropists do not even experience the personal joy of helping. Moreover, for universities and managers of social projects, the results suggest that investing in building a reputable brand and ensuring transparency in execution processes will yield greater productivity than relying solely on government incentive policies. The recommended strategies are: (1) developing a regular social impact reporting protocol in measurable and verifiable language; (2) designing experience-based events that allow philanthropists to engage and experience the project outcomes, thus reinforcing "successful experiences" and "inner joy"; and (3) creating a "charitable investors’ club" for networking and sharing success stories with potential partners, as the authentic narrative of positive experiences expands the circle of trust. Furthermore, this study focused on a small sample of active philanthropists in a specific faculty; therefore, generalizing the results to other social domains or geographical regions requires caution. It is suggested that future studies adopt a multi-case study approach with combined data or use structural equation modeling for quantitative testing of the model in a larger population. Additionally, combining the ISM approach with Fuzzy DEMATEL techniques can enhance the discrimination power of the causal pathways. Ultimately, the innovation of this study lies in two aspects: This study is the first to systematically map the causal‑structural drivers motivating Iranian philanthropists’ support for entrepreneurial education. Combining ISM with MICMAC analysis uncovers the internal dynamics of charitable investment decisions and offers a mid‑level theoretical model for future research.

Keywords: Charitable Investment, Mental Drivers, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM), Entrepreneurship University, Social Impact.