14. Sustainable and Future Food Systems

Introduction and Context

Food systems include all activities through which food is produced, harvested, processed, transported, marketed, prepared, consumed and discarded. Hospitality operations are an important part of this system. Hotels, restaurants, institutional caterers and event venues influence agricultural demand, energy and water use, packaging, labour conditions, consumer choices and the quantity of food sent to landfill. Consequently, sustainability in hospitality is not limited to purchasing organic ingredients or reducing plastic. It requires the redesign of decisions across the entire food value chain.

A sustainable food system should provide safe, nutritious and desirable food while remaining environmentally responsible, economically viable and socially fair. These goals may conflict. A local product may be highly seasonal or require energy-intensive protected cultivation; a plant-based substitute may reduce some impacts but involve extensive processing and packaging; a low-waste menu may increase labour and planning requirements. Future food management therefore depends on evidence-based evaluation rather than slogans.

For postgraduate hospitality managers, the central task is to connect food science, operations, procurement, finance, technology and ethics. This chapter examines life-cycle thinking, food loss and waste, circular practices, responsible sourcing, clean-label reformulation, alternative proteins, precision fermentation, personalised nutrition and smart kitchens. It then develops a strategic approach for resilient innovation.

Learning Objectives

After studying this chapter, students should be able to:

1. Explain the environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainable food systems.

2. Apply life-cycle thinking to hospitality purchasing and menu decisions.

3. Distinguish food loss from food waste and design interventions across the food chain.

4. Evaluate circular economy practices and responsible sourcing strategies.

5. Discuss the scientific and operational implications of clean-label reformulation, alternative proteins and precision fermentation.

6. Assess the opportunities and risks of personalised nutrition and smart kitchens.

7. Develop a resilient innovation strategy using measurable targets, governance and stakeholder engagement.

From Sustainable Ingredients to Sustainable Systems

Sustainability has three closely connected dimensions. Environmental sustainability concerns greenhouse-gas emissions, biodiversity, soil health, water, energy, pollution and resource depletion. Economic sustainability concerns affordability, productivity, profitability, supply continuity and the viability of producers. Social sustainability includes fair wages, safe work, food access, cultural appropriateness, animal welfare and the rights of affected communities.

The concept of the triple bottom line is useful because it prevents managers from treating environmental performance as separate from business performance. Nevertheless, it is not a substitute for prioritisation. A business may report good financial results while shifting environmental costs to farmers or communities. Sustainability assessment must therefore consider externalities: costs or benefits affecting parties who are not directly involved in a transaction.

Resilience adds a further dimension. A resilient food operation can anticipate disruption, absorb shocks and recover without compromising safety or its essential purpose. Climate events, disease outbreaks, geopolitical conflict, labour shortages, cyberattacks and price volatility can interrupt supplies. Resilience may require diversified suppliers, seasonal menu flexibility, preserved foods, safety stock, scenario planning and strong relationships with local producers. Resilience is not the same as maximum inventory; excessive stock can increase waste and working-capital costs.

Important terminology

A food system boundary defines which activities and impacts are included in an assessment. The farm-to-fork boundary may include agricultural production through consumption, whereas a gate-to-gate study may examine only a processing or kitchen stage. Scope decisions must be declared because they influence conclusions.

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a structured method for estimating environmental impacts associated with a product, process or service across defined stages. A typical LCA includes goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation. Inventory data may include kilograms of ingredients, litres of water, electricity, fuel, packaging and waste. Impact categories can include climate change, water scarcity, eutrophication, land use and resource depletion.

Carbon footprint measures greenhouse-gas emissions, usually expressed as carbon-dioxide equivalents. It is important but incomplete: a menu with a low carbon footprint may still create high water stress, biodiversity loss or poor labour conditions. Water footprint similarly requires interpretation because the location and timing of water use matter. A litre of water in a water-abundant region is not equivalent to a litre used in a drought-prone basin.

Life-Cycle Thinking in Hospitality Decisions

Life-cycle thinking asks what happens before and after an ingredient reaches the kitchen. Consider a hotel breakfast. The manager must evaluate not only the energy used by a toaster but also agricultural production, refrigeration, packaging, transport, buffet holding, plate waste and cleaning. In many cases, the largest impacts occur before cooking, especially for resource-intensive animal products, although the pattern varies by ingredient and production system.

A practical hospitality LCA can follow six steps:

1. Define the decision. For example, compare beef, legume and cultivated or fermented protein for a signature dish.

2. Set the functional unit. Comparing one kilogram of raw product can be misleading; a portion delivering a specified amount of edible protein or a finished meal may be more useful.

3. Map the system boundary. Include production, processing, packaging, transport, storage, preparation, service and disposal as relevant.

4. Collect activity data. Record purchasing quantities, yields, energy use, refrigeration, transport distances, packaging and waste.

5. Interpret trade-offs. Examine environmental indicators alongside nutrition, cost, safety, guest acceptance and labour requirements.

6. Act and review. Implement the preferred option, measure outcomes and revisit assumptions when suppliers or technologies change.

The functional unit is especially important. A comparison based only on weight may favour a product with high water content or low nutritional value. Hospitality managers should also use edible yield and menu function. Peels, bones and trimming alter the real impact of a portion. Similarly, transport distance alone is a weak sustainability indicator: transport mode, load efficiency, season, production method and storage requirements may be more significant.

LCA has limitations. Data may be incomplete, supplier-specific information may be unavailable, allocation may be required when a process produces several products, and impact models involve assumptions. LCA should therefore support managerial judgement, not create false precision. Results should be presented with boundaries, data quality and uncertainty clearly stated.

Food Loss, Waste and Value Recovery

Food loss generally occurs before retail or final preparation, through harvest damage, inadequate storage, processing losses or transport failure. Food waste commonly refers to food discarded at retail, food service or household level, including overproduction, spoilage, preparation residues and plate waste. The boundary between the terms differs across institutions, but the management principle is consistent: prevent avoidable material loss before considering recovery.

A useful hierarchy is prevention, redistribution, reuse, recycling or biological recovery, energy recovery and disposal. Prevention usually has the greatest environmental value because it avoids the resources used to produce, transport and prepare the food. Donating safe surplus may be preferable to disposal, but donation requires time-temperature control, traceability, legal clarity and reliable receiving organisations.

Hospitality waste should be measured by source rather than as one undifferentiated total. A kitchen can distinguish storage spoilage, preparation trim, buffet leftovers, returned portions and beverage waste. Weighing waste for several representative service periods, recording the cause and assigning a financial value creates a stronger basis for action than relying on impressions.

Operational interventions include demand forecasting, smaller initial buffet displays, replenishment in batches, flexible portion sizes, accurate par levels, improved stock rotation, root-to-stem or nose-to-tail cooking where culturally and safely appropriate, and menu engineering. Edible by-products can become stocks, sauces, pickles, powders or staff meals, but safety and quality must not be compromised. Inedible material may be composted or anaerobically digested where appropriate infrastructure exists.

Waste prevention must not encourage unsafe extended shelf life. Hazard analysis, allergen control, date coding, rapid cooling, cold-chain monitoring and validated preservation processes remain mandatory. Sustainability cannot justify serving food that is microbiologically unsafe.

Circular Practices and Responsible Sourcing

A linear food model extracts resources, produces food, uses it once and discards residuals. A circular model seeks to retain the value of materials through prevention, reuse, repair, regeneration and recovery. In hospitality, circularity may involve reusable serviceware, refill systems, returnable transport packaging, procurement of by-products, composting, water reuse where legally permitted, and partnerships that convert spent coffee grounds or fruit residues into useful products.

Circularity should be evaluated carefully. Reusable items require washing, transport and replacement; their benefit depends on the number of reuse cycles, washing efficiency and logistics. Recycling is not automatically circular if materials are difficult to collect or have low-quality end markets. A circular initiative should specify the material flow, responsible party, hygiene controls, energy requirements and measurable outcome.

Responsible sourcing extends beyond environmental labels. A procurement policy may address deforestation, overfishing, animal welfare, labour rights, modern slavery, indigenous rights, traceability, food safety and supplier resilience. Certification can assist but is not a complete guarantee. Managers should understand the standard, chain of custody, audit method and scope of a claim.

A responsible sourcing process can include supplier screening, risk mapping, contract requirements, verification, corrective action and periodic review. High-risk products may require stronger traceability or supplier engagement. Small producers may lack the administrative capacity to meet complex reporting demands; fair procurement may therefore involve technical support, realistic volumes, prompt payment and long-term relationships rather than automatic exclusion.

Local purchasing can support regional economies and reduce certain logistics risks, but “local” is not synonymous with sustainable. Seasonality, production intensity, refrigeration, yield and transport consolidation must be considered. The most responsible menu often combines regional seasonal products with carefully selected products from outside the region.

Reformulating Food for Clean Labels and Nutrition

Clean label is a market and communication concept rather than a scientific category with one universal definition. Consumers may associate it with recognisable ingredients, minimal processing, no artificial additives, transparency or short ingredient lists. However, an unfamiliar chemical name is not necessarily unsafe, and removing a permitted additive can reduce shelf life, food safety or product quality.

Clean-label reformulation should begin with product function. Stabilizers may control emulsion separation, preservatives may inhibit pathogens or spoilage organisms, and antioxidants may protect flavour and nutrients. Replacing an ingredient requires understanding its technological role, not simply substituting a fashionable alternative. Possible approaches include fermentation, starches, fibres, plant extracts, controlled acidity, high-pressure processing, modified atmosphere packaging or improved cold-chain management.

Reformulation must be validated through sensory testing, microbiological testing, shelf-life studies, nutritional analysis, allergen review and cost assessment. A reduction in sugar, salt or saturated fat can improve nutritional quality, but texture, flavour and consumer acceptance must be managed. “Natural” ingredients can also cause allergies, vary in composition or create misleading expectations. Labels and menu claims should be accurate, comprehensible and legally compliant.

The best clean-label strategy is transparency: explain why an ingredient is used, avoid unnecessary additives, retain those that provide important safety or quality functions, and communicate the overall nutritional and processing profile honestly.

Alternative Proteins and Precision Fermentation

Alternative proteins include plant-based proteins, edible insects, algae, biomass fermentation, precision-fermented ingredients and cell-cultured products. They are not a single category. Their nutritional value, processing requirements, environmental profile, price, sensory performance and regulatory status differ substantially.

Plant proteins such as pulses, soy, peas and cereals can be used as whole foods, concentrates, isolates, textured products or fermented preparations. Product design may address amino-acid balance, digestibility, texture, flavour, colour and moisture retention. Hospitality applications include blended burgers, legume-based spreads, tofu and tempeh dishes, pulse-rich menus and plant-forward tasting courses. A plant-based menu should not simply imitate meat; it can showcase culinary traditions and whole-food ingredients.

Precision fermentation uses microorganisms programmed or selected to produce a specific protein, enzyme, flavour compound or functional ingredient. The organism is grown in a controlled vessel, and the target product is recovered and purified. This differs from traditional fermentation, in which microorganisms transform a food matrix, although both rely on microbial biotechnology. Potential benefits include consistent production and reduced dependence on livestock for selected ingredients. Questions remain concerning energy sources, feedstocks, purification, cost, consumer acceptance, intellectual property and regulation.

Cell-cultured meat involves growing animal cells in controlled systems. It may eventually provide new options, but scale, energy demand, media cost, tissue structure, sensory quality and regulatory approval remain important considerations. Hospitality managers should avoid presenting emerging products as automatically superior. Pilot purchasing should examine safety documentation, allergen information, supplier reliability, preparation requirements, guest response and total cost.

Personalised Nutrition and Smart Kitchens

Personalised nutrition adapts dietary guidance or food provision to individual characteristics such as allergies, medical needs, preferences, activity patterns, cultural requirements and, in some models, biometric or genetic information. In hotels and restaurants, the most practical applications currently involve preference and allergen management, tailored portioning, dietary substitution and nutrition information. Personalisation should not be confused with unsupported claims that genetic tests can prescribe a perfect diet.

Personalised services require reliable data, informed consent, accurate kitchen communication and strict allergen controls. A guest’s preference profile should not replace direct confirmation of severe allergies or medical instructions. Data minimisation is important: businesses should collect only information needed for a defined service and protect it from unauthorised access.

Smart kitchens integrate sensors, connected equipment, kitchen-display systems, inventory platforms, recipe databases and analytics. Applications include temperature monitoring, predictive maintenance, automated ordering, demand forecasting, digital production sheets, yield analysis and real-time waste measurement. Artificial intelligence may identify demand patterns or recommend purchasing quantities, but the quality of its output depends on data quality and human oversight.

Automation can improve consistency and reduce repetitive work, but it may introduce cybersecurity risks, vendor dependence, algorithmic bias and deskilling. A connected refrigerator that automatically orders stock can amplify an incorrect forecast. Managers need access controls, audit trails, backup procedures, staff training and a manual fallback process.

A Strategic Framework for Future Hospitality Operations

A resilient innovation strategy should connect purpose with measurable implementation. One useful framework has seven stages:

Diagnose. Establish a baseline for emissions, water, waste, procurement, nutrition, cost and guest satisfaction. Identify hotspots rather than attempting to change everything at once.

Prioritise. Rank initiatives by impact, feasibility, investment, regulatory risk, guest value and resilience contribution. Prevention and operational improvements often deserve priority over highly visible but low-impact projects.

Design. Develop menus, recipes, supplier agreements and workflows that address the selected problems. Use cross-functional teams involving chefs, procurement, engineering, finance, service staff and food-safety professionals.

Test. Conduct controlled pilots. Compare a new dish or process with the existing baseline using consistent functional units and service conditions.

Validate. Assess food safety, sensory acceptance, nutritional quality, labour effects, cost, life-cycle indicators and equity implications.

Scale. Standardise recipes, train staff, update purchasing specifications, communicate with guests and integrate data systems.

Learn and govern. Review indicators, investigate unintended consequences and publish credible progress. Assign responsibility at executive, operational and supplier levels.

Useful indicators include food waste per guest, edible yield, percentage of spend with traceable suppliers, energy per cover, water per meal, plant-forward menu sales, verified labour standards, complaint rates, allergen incidents, forecast accuracy and supplier concentration. A dashboard should not reward one indicator at the expense of others. For example, reducing food cost by reducing portion size may increase guest dissatisfaction or plate waste.

Illustrative Case: The Meridian Hotel Breakfast Transformation

Background

The fictional Meridian Hotel is a 220-room urban property serving approximately 280 breakfast covers daily. Its buffet generated high levels of untouched surplus, while procurement staff faced volatile prices for eggs, fruit and bakery products. Management wished to reduce environmental impact without lowering guest satisfaction or compromising the hotel’s premium positioning.

Situation and analysis

A four-week measurement exercise separated waste into storage spoilage, preparation trim, buffet surplus and plate returns. The largest category was buffet surplus, particularly pastries, cut fruit and cooked hot items near the end of service. Forecasts were based on room occupancy alone and did not account for day of week, group bookings, weather or historical consumption. The hotel also discovered that several suppliers used different package sizes, complicating stock rotation.

Strategy

The hotel introduced a smaller opening display with more frequent replenishment, live demand forecasting and half-size trays during the final service period. Guests could request cooked items from a menu, reducing passive overproduction. Recipes were redesigned to use seasonal fruit and to convert safe surplus ingredients into staff meals or next-day components only where validated food-safety procedures permitted. Procurement consolidated deliveries, specified reusable transport crates and requested origin and labour information for high-risk products.

A plant-forward station offered pulse-based preparations, fermented vegetables and locally seasonal dishes, while familiar egg and dairy options remained available. Digital scales recorded waste by category, and the kitchen display system linked production quantities to occupancy and historical sales. Staff training emphasised that waste measurement was a process-improvement tool, not a disciplinary exercise.

Outcome

After three months, the hotel reported lower buffet surplus, improved forecast accuracy and reduced expenditure on overproduced items. Guest satisfaction remained stable, while sales of the plant-forward station increased. Management did not claim that all impacts had been eliminated: the new digital equipment required investment, data quality required continuous review, and some suppliers could not immediately provide complete traceability.

Learning points

The case demonstrates that sustainability is often achieved through coordinated operational changes rather than one substitute ingredient. Measurement must identify causes, not merely quantities. Guest choice, food safety, procurement, technology and staff culture must be managed together. Finally, transparent reporting of limitations is more credible than an unsupported claim of “zero waste.”

Challenges, Ethics and Governance

Sustainable innovation can produce unintended effects. A product may reduce carbon emissions but increase water use, packaging or dependence on a single supplier. Technology may improve efficiency while excluding workers or exposing personal data. Premium sustainable menus may become inaccessible to lower-income guests. Certification may create administrative burdens for small producers. Ethical management requires these distributional effects to be examined.

Greenwashing occurs when communication exaggerates or obscures environmental performance. Claims such as “eco-friendly,” “natural,” “carbon neutral” or “zero waste” should be specific, evidence-based and supported by an appropriate boundary. Managers should distinguish an absolute reduction from an intensity reduction and should not use offsets to conceal continuing operational impacts.

Food safety, allergen regulation, labelling rules, advertising standards, waste law, animal-welfare requirements and data-protection legislation all shape future food systems. Governance should include documented responsibilities, supplier due diligence, incident reporting, internal audits, whistleblowing channels and periodic independent review. Human judgement remains essential where automated recommendations affect health, safety, employment or access to food.

Current Developments and Best Practices

Important developments include regenerative agriculture, climate-adapted crops, low-carbon refrigeration, digital product passports, reusable packaging systems, upcycled ingredients, low-temperature processing, hybrid proteins, microbial ingredients and improved alternative-protein textures. Their value depends on local infrastructure, evidence and responsible scale-up.

Best practice in hospitality includes:

• establish a measurable baseline before announcing targets;
• use prevention before recycling or disposal;
• evaluate products using nutritional, financial, social and life-cycle criteria;
• purchase seasonally while avoiding simplistic localism;
• require traceability and credible claims from suppliers;
• validate reformulations for safety, quality and allergens;
• pilot emerging technologies before major investment;
• protect personal and operational data;
• involve chefs and frontline employees in design;
• communicate clearly without overstating results; and
• review targets as science, regulation and supply conditions change.

Chapter Summary

Sustainable and future food systems require a whole-chain perspective. Life-cycle thinking helps hospitality managers compare ingredients and processes across production, preparation, service and disposal, while recognising uncertainty and trade-offs. Food loss and waste should be measured by cause and addressed through prevention, accurate forecasting, safe redistribution, reuse and appropriate recovery. Circular practices retain material value, but their benefits depend on logistics, hygiene and actual reuse.

Responsible sourcing includes environmental performance, labour rights, animal welfare, traceability and supplier resilience. Clean-label reformulation must preserve the technological functions of ingredients and be validated for safety, nutrition and consumer acceptance. Alternative proteins and precision fermentation offer opportunities but require careful assessment of regulation, energy, cost, sensory quality and social acceptance. Personalised nutrition and smart kitchens can improve service and resource management, provided that data protection, cybersecurity, human oversight and allergen control are maintained.

A resilient strategy proceeds from diagnosis and prioritisation to design, testing, validation, scaling and governance. The strongest hospitality innovations align environmental improvement with food safety, guest value, financial viability, worker welfare and transparent evidence.

Key Terms

Life-cycle assessment: A method for estimating impacts of a product or process across defined stages of its life.

Functional unit: The quantified basis used to compare products or services in an assessment.

Food loss: Reduction of food quantity or quality occurring mainly before retail or final consumption.

Food waste: Food discarded or allowed to spoil at retail, food-service or consumer stages.

Circular economy: An economic approach that retains the value of materials through prevention, reuse, regeneration and recovery.

Externality: A cost or benefit imposed on parties not directly involved in a transaction.

Carbon footprint: Greenhouse-gas emissions associated with an activity, commonly expressed as carbon-dioxide equivalents.

Water footprint: The volume and location-related impact of water used by a product, process or service.

Responsible sourcing: Procurement that considers environmental, social, ethical, safety and traceability criteria.

Clean label: A consumer-oriented description generally associated with recognisable ingredients, transparency or minimal perceived artificiality.

Reformulation: Altering a food recipe to change its nutritional, sensory, safety or functional characteristics.

Alternative protein: Protein produced from non-conventional animal sources, plants, microorganisms or cultured cells.

Precision fermentation: Controlled microbial production of specified proteins or compounds using biotechnology.

Personalised nutrition: Adaptation of food or dietary guidance to individual needs, characteristics and preferences.

Smart kitchen: A connected kitchen using sensors, digital systems, automation and analytics to support operations.

Resilience: The capacity to anticipate, withstand, adapt to and recover from disruption.

Food-system boundary: The stages and activities included in a sustainability assessment.

Greenwashing: Misleading communication that exaggerates or falsely represents sustainability performance.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. What are the three dimensions of the triple bottom line in food-system management?

2. Why is a functional unit necessary in life-cycle comparison?

3. Distinguish food loss from food waste.

4. What is precision fermentation?

5. State two data-protection concerns in personalised nutrition.

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain how a hotel can apply life-cycle thinking to a signature menu item.

2. Discuss a hierarchy for managing food waste and the food-safety controls required.

3. Evaluate the opportunities and limitations of responsible sourcing in hospitality.

4. Explain the technical and managerial issues involved in clean-label reformulation.

5. Describe how smart kitchens can improve resilience while introducing new risks.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A resort has high buffet waste but wishes to preserve a luxury guest experience. Design a measurement and intervention plan using the framework presented in this chapter.

2. Compare a plant-based protein and a precision-fermented ingredient for a hotel menu. Identify the environmental, nutritional, operational, regulatory and guest-acceptance factors that should be assessed.

3. Construct a sustainability dashboard for a multi-property hotel group. Justify at least six indicators and explain how you would prevent one indicator from producing unintended consequences.

22. Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which choice best reflects life-cycle thinking in a hospitality menu decision?

A. Selecting the ingredient with the shortest transport distance only

B. Comparing production, processing, storage, preparation, service and disposal impacts

C. Measuring only the electricity used by kitchen equipment

D. Choosing the product with the shortest ingredient list

Correct Answer: B. Comparing production, processing, storage, preparation, service and disposal impacts

Question 2

Why is a functional unit important in a life-cycle assessment?

A. It eliminates the need for supplier data

B. It makes every environmental impact identical

C. It provides a consistent basis for comparing alternatives

D. It measures only the purchase price of ingredients

Correct Answer: C. It provides a consistent basis for comparing alternatives

Question 3

Which intervention normally has the highest priority in a food-waste hierarchy?

A. Preventing overproduction and spoilage

B. Sending waste to landfill

C. Recovering energy after disposal

D. Recycling contaminated food packaging

Correct Answer: A. Preventing overproduction and spoilage

Question 4

A hotel wants to introduce a clean-label sauce by removing a preservative. What should it do first?

A. Remove the preservative and rely on guest feedback

B. Replace it with any ingredient described as natural

C. Assess the preservative’s function and validate safety and shelf life

D. Shorten the ingredient list without changing the process

Correct Answer: C. Assess the preservative’s function and validate safety and shelf life

Question 5

Which statement most accurately describes precision fermentation?

A. Growing whole crops without irrigation

B. Using controlled microorganisms to produce specified proteins or compounds

C. Fermenting food only with naturally occurring yeast in open containers

D. Culturing animal tissue exclusively in a restaurant kitchen

Correct Answer: B. Using controlled microorganisms to produce specified proteins or compounds

Question 6

Which is the strongest reason that local food is not automatically sustainable?

A. Local food can never be seasonal

B. Distance is the only relevant environmental factor

C. Production method, storage, yield and transport efficiency also affect impacts

D. Local products are always more expensive

Correct Answer: C. Production method, storage, yield and transport efficiency also affect impacts

Question 7

A smart refrigerator automatically orders ingredients using a faulty demand forecast. What risk does this illustrate?

A. Algorithmic amplification of poor data

B. Improved supplier diversification

C. Validated allergen control

D. Reduced dependence on technology

Correct Answer: A. Algorithmic amplification of poor data

Question 8

Which practice best supports responsible sourcing?

A. Selecting suppliers solely on the lowest price

B. Requiring traceability, assessing labour risks and reviewing corrective action

C. Excluding all small producers automatically

D. Treating certification as proof that no further checks are needed

Correct Answer: B. Requiring traceability, assessing labour risks and reviewing corrective action

Question 9

Why should hospitality businesses be cautious when collecting personalised nutrition data?

A. Such data has no operational value

B. It can create privacy, consent, security and allergen-management risks

C. Digital data cannot be stored accurately

D. Personalisation prevents all menu substitutions

Correct Answer: B. It can create privacy, consent, security and allergen-management risks

Question 10

Which sequence best represents the innovation framework in this chapter?

A. Scale, diagnose, advertise, test, dispose

B. Purchase, discard, reformulate, certify, scale

C. Diagnose, prioritise, design, test, validate, scale and govern

D. Forecast, automate, outsource, label and stop measuring

Correct Answer: C. Diagnose, prioritise, design, test, validate, scale and govern