The importance of subsidiaries reaches its pick with their entrepreneurial role. Subsidiary initiatives (SI) are seen as “discrete, proactive undertaking that advances a new way for the corporation to use or expand its resources” (Birkinshaw, 2014, p. 203), which starts with the identification of an opportunity and should achieve the commitment of resources. Nonetheless, though initiatives are beneficial for the entire MNC (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1988; Birkinshaw & Hood, 2000; Birkinshaw et al., 2005), they are not necessarily well receive by HQ but instead the MNC corporate immune system activates and initiative are rejected (Birkinshaw & Ridderstråle, 1999). This happens because initiatives go beyond the subsidiary’s mandate, and HQ´s lack of knowledge or understanding of an initiative leads them to suspect from the initiative, as SI could not be aligned to HQ´s goals (Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008). Therefore, subsidiaries must assertively sell their initiatives to HQ to gain support and approval. Subsidiary´s position within an MNC, with a mandate and control from HQ, as well as horizontal relations with sister units, and in a local context, creates unique opportunities and challenges to develop entrepreneurial capabilities, defined as subsidiary-specific advantages (SSA). There are two critical variables involved in the development of these advantages, subsidiary managers and employees, and networks. The access to valuable and tacit knowledge and resources from the local environment allows the subsidiary to discover entrepreneurial opportunities, also it makes the capabilities of a subsidiary unique among the rest of the MNC, which are in many cases the result of managers/employees’ interaction with local networks (Mahnke, Venzin & Zahra, 2007). Also, the subsidiary managers and employees develop this tacit knowledge by interacting with those networks, and by combining them with their previous knowledge, backgrounds and beliefs (Mahnke et al., 2007). When studying subsidiary management, the main focus is the CEO and few authors study the TMT (Collings, Morley & Gunnigle, 2008; Gong, 2006; Harvey & Novicevic, 2002), as IB literature on TMT is concentrated on parent company. However, it has been recognized by several authors that decisions are not the result of a single person but of a group (O’Reilly, Snyder & Boothe, 1993), and the characteristics of the group can shape the outcomes or performance of the firm (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Then, it is important to understand how the subsidiary top management teams (STMT) are composed, their interaction and how their traits influence the subsidiary´s operation. Moreover, since diverse TMT are associated to innovation, studying the impact of heterogeneous STMT on subsidiary initiatives is very relevant. Understanding the composition of the STMT and their contribution to MNC can lead to managerial strategies to constitute the adequate team to promote entrepreneurship on foreign units. Finally, regarding the role of networks on initiatives, embeddedness has been subject of study on IB as subsidiaries are embedded in the local context and the organizational (MNC) context (Birkinshaw, 1999; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1990). External embeddedness, relations with host country actors, has been found to be positive for SI as subsidiaries would have access to valuable information, knowledge and resources from these networks (Andersson, 2003; Andersson & Forsgren, 1996, 2000; Andersson, Forsgren & Holm, 2002, 2007; Bresciani & Ferraris, 2016). Also, it has been related to SI success, since “Initiatives that are developed with the assistance and encouragement of network partners receive more attention and display a higher rate of survival” (Strutzenberger & Ambos, 2014, p. 321). Additionally, internal embeddedness, relations with HQ and sister units, is proven to have a positive impact on the implementation of the initiative, particularly in the approval by HQ (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 2005; Inkpen & Beamish, 1997; Najafi-Tavani, Giroud & Andersson, 2014). Hence, a dual and positive impact of both types of embeddedness is expected on SI; however, results are inconclusive as some studies support this dual effect while other found a trade-off (Achcaoucaou, Miravitlles & León-Darder, 2014;Asmussen, Foss & Pedersen, 2013; Ciabuschi, Holm & Martín, 2014; Figueiredo, 2011; Najafi-Tavani et al., 2014; Scott-Kennel & Giroud, 2015; Yamin & Andersson, 2011). Then, it remains important to determine if the joint effect of external and internal embeddedness is beneficial or not for SI.