IB researchers have long since recognized that MNEs are heterogenous entities with subsidiaries having different roles. The discussion of subsidiary roles stems from insights of subsidiaries having differentiated functions in the HQ–subsidiary relationship, which vary in relation to the heterogenous characteristics of their respective business environments. Received typologies subsequently describe how subsidiaries may hold roles that span from being receivers of HQ knowledge and implementors of HQ strategies, to their undertaking of more weighty strategic roles through control of critical resources and creators of new knowledge. Early phases of the research that observed how subsidiaries controlled their own resources tended to address this strength in terms of the ability to create autonomy in the HQ–subsidiary relationship. Later, due to the emergence of a more balanced view on dependence in their relationships with HQs, the discussion recognized that subsidiaries sometimes become important for strategy formulation of the whole MNC and/or highly influential over strategic decisions. One aspect of the latter research, which accelerated through more systematic studies in the late 1990s, was how subsidiary knowledge development related to internal and external features of the MNC. This research suggested different but overlapping conceptualizations of extended subsidiary responsibilities, e.g., expressed as subsidiary global mandates, strategic leaders, strategic centers, centers of excellence (hereafter labelled CoE), competence-creating subsidiaries, etc.