["Business Ethics, the Environment &Responsibility, EarlyView. ", "\nABSTRACT\nWhy do firms have different voluntary environmental management (VEM) responses under similar institutional pressures? This study integrates institutional theory, resource‐based view, and upper echelons theory, and uses a mixed‐methods approach to examine the nonlinear impact of pressure–resource (P–R) congruence on VEM and the moderating role of managerial environmental orientation (MEO). First, polynomial regression and response surface analysis were used on survey data from 272 Chinese mining companies to quantitatively examine the nonlinear relationship between P–R congruence and VEM. Second, in‐depth interviews with 15 case firms revealed the moderating mechanism of MEO. Findings indicate that (1) an inverted U‐shaped nonlinear relationship exists between P–R congruence and VEM responses, with the optimal response occurring under moderate pressure–resource balance; (2) context exhibits asymmetry: firms in low‐pressure‐high‐resource contexts demonstrate significantly better VEM performance than those in high‐pressure‐low‐resource contexts; (3) high MEO enables firms to overcome resource constraints and transform institutional pressure into innovation opportunities, whereas low MEO traps firms in passive, reactive strategic modes. Case interpretations further elucidate four response pathways: decoupling/neglect, risk aversion, legitimacy management, and strategic reframing. This study provides a matching perspective, theoretical framework, and practical implications for VEM responses in emerging markets.\n"]