No blame should fall on today's workforce.
Explicit positive JUDGEMENT. Indicates that the 'workforce' are blameless.
They have given their all as loyal, productive, flexible workers.
Explicit (inscribed) positive JUDGEMENT.
Nor should it [blame] be heaped on the management which turned the high-cost, low-quality, old British Steel Corporation into one of the world's finest steel makers.
"Nor should blame be heaped" = explicit JUDGEMENT.
"high-cost, low-quality, old British Steel Corporation"
This is an interesting case where the evaluation is complicated by the use of the somewhat abstract "British Steel Corporation" as the primary social actor. If the author had written something like, "In the old days, they produced high-cost, low-quality steel", this would have been a straightforward example of APPRECIATION - a negative assessment of a non-human phenomenon, steel, as "high-cost" and "low quality". But here it is not the steel, but the old Corporation which is said to be "high-cost" and "low-quality". Now, we might interpret this as suggesting that the people who worked for the old company were incompetent in that they produced a low-quality product - which would, of course, entail a value of negative JUDGEMENT. But this, however, is only the implication, an inference likely to be drawn. What is the direct, explicit evaluation at work here? On the face of it, it is not of human behaviour, at least not directly, but of this impersonalised or depersonalised entity, the old British Steel Corporation. Accordingly, I would analyse this as, in the first instance, explicit APPRECIATION, but might also record this as an instance of implicit (provoked) negative JUDGEMENT. (There is no reason why double codings of this type should not be made, where appropriate.)
"one of the world's finest steel makers" = explicit positive JUDGEMENT.
This is somewhat similar to the last case, at least to the extent that it is a company rather than individual or grouped that are being evaluated. But I believe the human element is still sufficiently present to treat this as explicit positive JUDGEMENT. The behaviour of the people who make up the company is being evaluated - these people are highly competent in what they do.
'The people who work the management turned the high-cost, low-quality, old British Steel Corporation into one of the world's finest steel makers" = implicit (provoked by "finest") JUDGEMENT.
Here there is another layer of evaluation by which it is the management of the new company, rather than its workers, for example, which is singled out for a positive assessment. I see this JUDGEMENT as implicit (provoked), since it's an inference which is drawn from the observation that the management has changed the company from one which produced low-quality steel to one which produces high-quality steel. The distinction here, however, between implicit and explicit realisation is a fine one indeed and may depend on whether or not we see "the management" as being the same entity as 'the finest steel maker".
