This thesis presents an empirical study of academics’ engagement with Responsible Management Education (RME) in UK business schools. The study focuses particularly on individual academics’ reported practices in relation to integrating ethics, responsibility and sustainability into their teaching, research, curriculum development, administrative roles and collaboration with industry. Four main areas of literature are critically discussed: extant literature on RME, hidden curriculum, neo-institutional theory focusing on institutional logics and paradox theory, which collectively contribute to the theoretical foundation and the development of the conceptual framework of the research. A qualitative research methodology was adopted, focusing on in-depth interviews with academics working in business schools. A total of 23 academics from 23 business schools in the UK participated in this research, providing a rich source of primary data for analysis. Accordingly, the results demonstrated academics’ perception of RME as a holistic practice comprising multiple academic and administrative activities within and outside of business schools, and that the level of academics’ engagement with RME greatly depended on their roles as well as the business schools’ strategic orientations towards RME. The findings also elaborated on the role of hidden curriculum (HC) in enhancing RME at the individual level, as the interrelationship between academics’ RME practices and HC was found through four implicit educational dimensions: value fits, socialisation activities, formal curriculum, and school governance system. Furthermore, the findings showed evidence that two distinct institutional logics—academic logic and business logic — are integral to explaining the multiple competing pressures shaping academics’ lived experience with RME engagement. Two prevalent responses (receptive response and defensive response) from academics were discovered as their individual strategies for dealing with the influence of two logics on their engagement with RME. The findings also uncovered several internal challenges associated with the paradoxical tensions experienced by participants, leading to the recognition of both individual and business-school-level factors that affect how academics adapted to these tensions when engaging with RME. Especially, academics’ paradoxical mindset was highlighted as a powerful element, leveraging the potential for tensions to effectively foster RME commitment in the long term for both individual academics and business schools. Therefore, these findings contribute empirical knowledge to the ongoing discussion concerning RME transformation in business schools at the micro level. It also contributes theoretically to neo-institutional theory by introducing two new micro-level response categories aimed at managing competing institutional pressures, and to paradox theory by delineating how the role of a paradoxical mindset operates within the context of RME. Finally, the intersection between institutional complexity and paradox theory uncovered in the research could be beneficial for future research investigating real-world experiences of tensions among different groups in organisations and their dynamic responses towards managing those different demands.