In contrast to Dirk Jager,
P&G CEO in 1999, who stressed on stretch goals, organized growth through investment and R&D, and an organization based on global business units, AF Lafelay’s strategy involved divestment of R&D by integrating innovation from outside and creating business units that act locally.
The main sentence would be as below.
In contrast to Dirk Jager, AF Lafelay’s strategy involved ...
Original sentence is wrong because we cannot contrast someone, Dirk Jager, to something, strategy. Right comparison should be human to human, a thing to thing. So we look for the answers that correctly contrast human, Dirt Jager, to Human, AF Lafelay, main subject of the sentence.
D is wrong because it compares, someone to something: Dirk Jager to strategy
E is also wrong because it compares Dirk Jager to implementation.
Let’s see B and C
B) AF Lafelay implemented the strategy that involved divestment of R&D by integrating innovation from outside and creating: corrects mentioned comparison error and meaning is delivered as what original sentence tries to convey. Let’s keep it.
C) AF Lafelay and his strategy involved divesting of R&D by integrating innovation from outside and creating of: even though, C seems used right subject, AF Lafelay, but it is partially. Adding “and his strategy” makes the subject wrong due to the incorrect comparison. Moreover, it changes the meaning. AF Lafelay did not involved divesting of R&D, instead the strategy that AF Lafelay implemented did.
B corrects all of the mentioned errors. Hence, B is our answer.
Posted from my mobile device