Custom compounding (i.e., blending and mixing) of purchased plastics resins · Minnesota

Clariant Minneapolis

Minneapolis, MN · ~59 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
2.1
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Clariant Minneapolis runs at 63% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Custom compounding (i.e., blending and mixing) of purchased plastics resins workplace, earning a grade B.

Clariant Minneapolis: 2.1 TCR = 63% of Custom compounding (i.e., blending and mixing) of purchased plastics resins BLS 3.3 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Clariant Minneapolis safety composite

Clariant Minneapolis scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 56% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 20%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

D

42/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 2.08 per 100 workers

Safer than 56% of industry peers

DART rate
F 3.2 per 100 workers

Safer than 20% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

Rising injury rate

Clariant Minneapolis: 0.0 → 3.2 TCR

Peak year 2020 @ 5.1 TCR · DART/TCR 1.54× in 2021

Clariant Minneapolis's TCR rose 3.2 from 0.0 in 2018 to 3.2 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2020 at 5.1 TCR. In 2021, DART was 1.54× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 325991 · Minneapolis, MN AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade B · TCR 2.1 · 63% of ind

  • DART 3.2 DART
  • RANK #3/9
  • PHOTO Eovations
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 3 inj
  • SIZE ~59 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Eovations (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · Minnesota employers → · Look up another →

Clariant Minneapolis in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows Clariant Minneapolis averages 2.1 TCR (63% of the Custom compounding (i.e., blending and mixing) of purchased plastics resins BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

Clariant Minneapolis TCR series: 2018=0 · 2019=0 · 2020=5.1 · 2021=3.2 · BLS 3.3

Where Clariant Minneapolis falls in its industry

342 Custom compounding (i.e., blen establishments

Safer than 56% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Minnesota alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #3 safest of 9 Custom compounding (i.e., blen employers in Minnesota.

Clariant Minneapolis (59 employees, TCR 2.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 72 employees and a TCR of 2.5 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 0100200300400500 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Clariant Minneapolis
Clariant Minneapolis (59 employees, TCR 2.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 72 employees and a TCR of 2.5

Clariant Minneapolis has fewer employees than the Custom compounding (i.e., blending and m median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.5. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2021 3.2 3.2 2 0 0
2020 5.1 1.7 1 2 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

325991 · MN · Minneapolis

342 Custom compounding (i.e., blending and mixing) of purchased plastics resins employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 15,828 rated employers in Minnesota with headcount on file · 1,321 employers in Minneapolis, MN · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR Eovations 2.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Lanier Color Company, Inc 2.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Washington Penn - V-BAT 2.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Continental Structural Plastics, Van Wert, Ohio 2.1 TCR
STATE-SIZE JDR Technologies, LLC 59 FTE
STATE-SIZE 7580 Commerce Lane NE, Fridley, MN 55432 59 FTE
STATE-SIZE Advantage Seamless, Inc. 59 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sauk Rapids, MN (All State) 59 FTE
CITY-NEAR University of Minnesota Twin Cities 22,522 FTE
CITY-NEAR MN950 MN TELECOMMUTER 12,021 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0501 - City Center 8,459 FTE
CITY-NEAR Hennepin County Medical Center 7,030 FTE
NAT-TCR Veritiv Operating Company - IL062 2.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc 2.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Springfield Campus Residential 2.1 TCR
NAT-TCR SRT 2.1 TCR
NAT-SIZE Integrity Electrical Solutions LLC 59 FTE
NAT-SIZE Zoological Society of Sioux Falls 59 FTE
NAT-SIZE GEG - Ground Ops 59 FTE
NAT-SIZE Rouses Market #44 59 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.