“…In this perspective, local spill-overs and learning effects are predominantly dictated by head office requirements, a situation which leaves local actors relatively powerless. In other contexts, however, the dominant managerial group in the subsidiary may be locals who perceive a community of fate with other employees in the firm and are therefore willing and able to strategize for the development of the subsidiary, either within or exceptionally outside the current MNC (as discussed in Kristensen and Zeitlin, 2005) However, the literature from organization studies suggests that this perspective has to be balanced by a focus on other social actors within the local context (Bélanger et al, 1999;Morgan et al, 2001;Morgan and Kristensen, 2006;Kristensen and Morgan, 2007;Dörrenbächer and Geppert, 2009;Becker-Ritterspach and Dörrenbächer, 2011;Dörrenbächer and Gammelgaard, 2011;Dörrenbächer and Geppert, 2011). Considering, firstly, the actors internal to the subsidiary -what strengths and capabilities might they have which could counteract or develop alternatives to the strategies which the MNC HQ seeks to impose?…”