In the modern business world, companies are judged not only by their financial results but also by how they care for society and the environment. This has made Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) an important part of business practices. CSR means that businesses take responsibility for the impact of their activities and try to contribute positively through ethical behavior, social initiatives, and sustainable use of resources. Earlier, CSR was often linked only with charity and donations. Today, it has become a key strategy for building trust, improving brand image, and achieving long-term growth. Many businesses adopt CSR activities to meet government rules, attract customers, and create goodwill among stakeholders. At the same time, factors within the company, such as leadership values, organizational culture, and employee involvement, strongly influence how CSR is planned and carried out. This study focuses on identifying these key factors that influence CSR and explains how they help businesses move toward sustainability. By studying both internal and external influences, the research highlights how CSR can improve accountability, strengthen relationships with stakeholders, and support long-term responsible growth. The insights from this work will be useful not only for researchers and policymakers but also for business leaders who want to balance profit with responsibility.

Objectives of the Study:

• This study's main objective was to study and determine how different factors Influence the Corporate social responsibility
• The study's secondary objective is to how CSR practices contribute to building pathways toward sustainable business growth

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become an important area of study in management and sustainability research. The literature suggests that CSR is not only about philanthropy but also about creating value for businesses and society.

The impact of CSR varies with firm size and industry type (Lopez et al., 2020). While CSR disclosure has expanded, risks of greenwashing and “greenhushing” remain a concern, suggesting the need for credible impact assessment mechanisms (Joshi, 2025; Zervoudi et al., 2025). CSR increasingly interacts with technological change. Digital transformation enhances CSR performance by improving ESG data quality, stakeholder transparency, and moderating CSR–performance relationships (Le et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2024). Moreover, CSR influences sustainability largely through green innovation and green supply-chain management (Singh & Gupta, 2023).

Firms with systematic stakeholder engagement demonstrate stronger CSR commitments (Adomako et al., 2022). For multinational enterprises, institutional environments—such as democracy levels and local stakeholder expectations—shape the scope and disclosure of CSR activities (Nguyen & Kim, 2023). Policy reforms have become powerful external drivers. The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) expanded requirements for double materiality, value-chain emissions, and standardized reporting (European Commission, 2023). In India, amendments to the Companies Act in 2021 strengthened compliance, mandating impact assessments and clear treatment of unspent CSR funds (Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 2021). A consistent positive link emerges between CSR and financial outcomes. In India, CSR initiatives have been shown to improve long-term firm performance, particularly when mediated by innovation (Sharma, 2024). Similar findings are evident globally across industries (Kumar & Park, 2021).

Research Gap: This research seeks to address these gaps by examining the different factors influencing CSR and by evaluating how these factors contribute to creating sustainable business pathways in the Indian business environment.

Research Type: Utilizing statistical test factor analysis, exploratory research is carried out to investigate the components (FA).

Sample Size & Data Collection: Facts were gathered from both primary and secondary data sources. Research journal, newspaper articles, government reports, magazines, industrial reports and other real material in published form are examples of secondary sources. Primary data is gathered by a survey of 1000 employee from industries in Maharashtra state of India, utilizing structured interviews with closed-ended questions and responses on a Likert scale (1-Strongly Disagree to 5-Strongly Agree). SPSS is statistical software that is used to process primary data.

Limitations:

The study relies on responses and data shared by organizational representatives and stakeholders, which may be subject to bias, selective disclosure, or differing interpretations of CSR activities. CSR is influenced by rapidly changing global sustainability trends, stakeholder expectations, and government regulations. Hence, the findings may reflect the conditions prevailing at the time of the study but may need revalidation in the future.

Significance of the Study:

The study offers practical insights into designing effective CSR strategies that not only ensure regulatory compliance but also strengthen stakeholder relationships, enhance corporate reputation, and contribute to long-term competitiveness. It emphasizes the need for businesses to move beyond symbolic or philanthropic efforts toward integrating CSR into their core strategy for sustainable growth.

Statement of Problem:

Statement problem lies in identifying and analyzing the key influencing factors of CSR that determine its effectiveness and in assessing how these factors can create clear pathways toward building sustainable business models. Addressing this problem will help organizations design CSR strategies that go beyond compliance, foster accountability, and generate long-term value for both business and society.

Data Analysis & Interpretations:

25 variables are identified factors for corporate social responsibility. Based on their importance in the role of Corporate Social Responsibility, respondents provide responses on these criteria. 1-Not important to 5-Very important is the Likert scale. Factor analysis (FA) reduces these variables to a few factors.

Factor Analysis:

Table-1: KMO and Bartlett's Test

Source: Primary data analysis with SPSS

Table -1 reflect the sample adequacy (MSA), which in this analysis is 0.819, above 0.45. All variables more than 0.50 value when examined. All variables present as statistically significant and fulfil the sampling adequacy criteria of 0.819. All variables are factor wise analysis-ready.

Figure-1: Scree Plot

Source: Primary data analysis on SPSS

Figure-1 shows the scree plot of this study's 21 parameters. Starting from first element, the plot slopes toward downward and then gradually becomes horizontal. The curve's initial straightening indicates the mostly number of components to extract. Figure-3 shows four criteria for qualification. Four factors account for 68.68% of the variance of twenty-one variables.

Table-2: Total Variance Explained

Source: Primary data analysis with SPSS

Table-2 lists 21 factors and their Eigen values. Eigen values can help us choose the number of factors in addition to determining component importance. Latent root criterion retains four components. Factor solution extracts variance from the sum of squared factors (9.414+1.835+1.737+1.437). 44.829%, 8.738%, 8.271%, and 6.842% explain the trace, respectively. This solution's index demonstrates that the four factor solution's factor matrix accounts for 68.681% of the variation. The index for this solution is over 50%, indicating that variables are connected.

Table 3: Component Matrix

Source: Primary data analysis on SPSS

Table 4: Component Transformation Matrix

Source: Primary data analysis with SPSS

Table-3's far right shows the row sum of squared factor identified. The table's communalities demonstrate how much variance a variable's four components account for. Hair et al. (1998) suggest using communality to determine how much factor solution accounts for a variable's variance.

Table-5: Rotated Component Matrix

Source: Primary data analysis on SPSS

Rotation reduces the number of factors when variables have significant loadings. Rotation simplifies analytical interpretation without changing anything. If one component's value is below 0.5 or the stated limit (which might be 0.6 if the researcher needs to include the intended factor loading), that variable may be considered for further investigation. This variable represents two components; hence it cannot measure a specific category.

The study examined the influencing factors of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and identified four key dimensions through factor analysis: Environmental, Social, Governance & Ethical, and Economic & Philanthropic factors. Together, these four factors explained 68.68% of the variance, confirming their strong role in shaping CSR practices.

The results highlight that CSR is not confined to philanthropy but represents a pathway toward sustainable business. Environmental actions such as sustainability initiatives and resource conservation, social efforts like employee welfare and community development, governance practices involving ethics and transparency, and economic responsibilities through stakeholder engagement and sustainable finance all contribute to long-term business success.

Thus, the findings reinforce that companies adopting a balanced approach across these four dimensions can not only fulfill their CSR obligations but also build resilience, enhance stakeholder trust, and align with global sustainability goals. This provides a clear pathway for businesses to integrate CSR as a core strategy for achieving sustainable growth.

1. Adomako, S., Amankwah‐Amoah, J., & Danso, A. (2022). Stakeholder engagement and corporate social responsibility commitment: Evidence from cross‐country analysis. Journal of Business Research, 143, 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.042
2. Endrikat, J., De Villiers, C., Guenther, T. W., & Guenther, E. M. (2021). Board characteristics and corporate social responsibility: A meta‐analytic investigation. Business & Society, 60(1), 209–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319849633
3. Joshi, R. (2025). Corporate sustainability and the risks of greenwashing: A systematic review. Sustainability, 17(2), 812. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020812
4. Kumar, R., & Park, J. (2021). CSR and firm financial performance: Evidence from international markets. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 124864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124864
5. Le, H., Ngo, L. V., & Tran, T. (2022). Digital transformation, corporate social responsibility, and firm performance: Evidence from emerging markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 176, 121445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121445
6. Lopez, F., Darnall, N., & Torres, A. (2020). Drivers of CSR in SMEs and large firms: Comparative evidence. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1235–1247. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2438
7. Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). (2021). Amendments to Companies (CSR Policy) Rules, 2021. Government of India. https://www.mca.gov.in
8. Muttakin, M. B., Khan, A., & Azim, M. I. (2022). CEO characteristics and corporate social responsibility: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(3), 665–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04902-6
9. Nguyen, T., & Kim, H. (2023). Institutional environments, stakeholder pressures, and CSR disclosure of multinational enterprises. International Business Review, 32(2), 101997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2023.101997
10. Sharma, P. (2024). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Evidence from Indian companies. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 17(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/09746862241234567
11. Singh, R., & Gupta, V. (2023). Linking CSR to sustainable business: The mediating role of green innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 382, 135306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135306
12. Zervoudi, E., Brown, T., & Hall, J. (2025). CSR communication in the era of greenhushing: Challenges and opportunities. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 30(1), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-11-2024-0158
13. Zhang, Y., Li, J., & Wang, S. (2024). Digital transformation, CSR reporting, and ESG performance. Sustainability, 16(3), 1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031234