Which quadrant does Google fit into in Nigeria, The U.S. & Canada (like google's company operations in each country) and why? if you can provide sources that would be greatly helpful. I think they would all be quadrant 4 as Google is an established MNC but I'm not sure how to back that up with evidence..

Will like if helpful, and will comment if I'm confused or not understanding your response/answer. Thank you for the help!

Combining Country and Firm-Specific Factors in International Strategy International management scholars have developed a simple framework that builds upon the integration-responsiveness framework to help managers understand the interaction between the relative attractiveness of different country locations for a given activity and the firm-level attributes or strengths that can be leveraged in that location. 81 The first set of factors is referred to as country-specific advantages, or CSAs, while the second is referred to as firm-specific advantages, or FSAs. CSAs can be based on natural resource endowments (minerals, energy, forests), the labor force, or less tangible factors that include education and skills, institutional protections of intellectual property, entrepreneurial dynamism, or other factors unique to a given market. FSAs are unique capabilities, proprietary to the organization, that may be based on product or process technology, marketing or distributional skills, or managerial know-how. Managers of MNCs use strategies that build upon the interactions of CSAs and FSAs. Figure 8-2 provides a graphical Page 303 depiction of this framework. The strength or weakness of FSAs and CSAs is a relative notion that depends on the relevant market and the CSAs and FSAs of potential competitors. Firm-specific advantages (FSAs) Weak Strong 1 3 3 Strong Country-specific advantages (CSAs) 2. 4 Weak Weak Strong Weak Strong Figure 8-2 The CSA-FSA Matrix Source: Rugman, Alan M., and Jonathan P. Doh. Multinationals and Development. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. MNCs in quadrants 1, 2, and 3 would be expected to pursue different strategies. Quadrant 1 firms tend to emphasize cost leadership; they are likely to be resource-based and/or mature, internationally oriented firms producing a commodity-type product. Given these factors, FSAs tend to be less important compared to the CSAs of location and energy costs, which are the main sources of the firm's competitive advantage. Quadrant 2 firms represent less efficient firms with few intrinsic CSAs or FSAs. Quadrant 2 also represent domestically based small and medium-sized firms with little global exposure. Firms in quadrant 4 are generally differentiated firms with strong FSAs in marketing and customization. These firms usually have strong brands. In quadrant 4 the FSAs dominate, so in world markets the home-country CSAs are not essential in the long run. Quadrant 3 firms generally can choose either the cost or differentiation strategies, or perhaps combine them because of the strength of both their CSAs and FSAs. In terms of business strategy, firms in quadrants 2 and 3 can benefit from strategies of both low cost and differentiation. Such a firm is constantly evaluating its production mix. Quadrants 4 and 1 require specific strategies for different types of firms. For instance, a quadrant 4 firm that has strong FSAs in marketing (customization) can operate internationally without reliance on its home-market CSA, or the CSAs of the host nation. For such a firm, in quadrant 4, the CSA is not relevant. In contrast, quadrant 1 has mature multinationals or product divisions determined more by CSAs than by FSAs. By improving potential FSAs in marketing or product innovation and increasing value added through vertical integration, a quadrant 1 firm can move to quadrant 3