Die-cut paper products (except for office use) made from purchased paper or paperboard · Wisconsin

Dixon Ticonderoga Company

Appleton, WI · ~572 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
2.4
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Dixon Ticonderoga Company runs at 72% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Die-cut paper products (except for office use) made from purchased paper or paperboard workplace, earning a grade B.

Dixon Ticonderoga Company: 2.4 TCR = 72% of Die-cut paper products (except for office use) made from purchased paper or paperboard BLS 3.3 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Dixon Ticonderoga Company safety composite

Dixon Ticonderoga Company scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 61% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 50%), 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).

C

58/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 2.38 per 100 workers

Safer than 61% of industry peers

DART rate
C 0.74 per 100 workers

Safer than 59% 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%).

TCR Δ

−1.9

2019→2021

Dixon Ticonderoga Company injury rate improved

Dixon Ticonderoga Company's TCR fell 1.9 from 3.1 in 2019 to 1.1 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2019 at 3.1 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0.31× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2019=3.1 · 2020=3.0 · 2021=1.1

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 322299 · Appleton, WI AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade B · TCR 2.4 · 72% of ind

  • DART 0.7 DART
  • RANK #9/25
  • PHOTO Tetra Pak Materials …
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 41 inj
  • SIZE ~572 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Tetra Pak Materials LLC (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Dixon Ticonderoga Company in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Dixon Ticonderoga Company averages 2.4 TCR (72% of the Die-cut paper products (except for office use) made from purchased paper or paperboard BLS benchmark).

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

Dixon Ticonderoga Company TCR series: 2019=3.1 · 2020=3 · 2021=1.1 · BLS 3.3

Where Dixon Ticonderoga Company falls in its industry

236 Die-cut paper products (except establishments

Safer than 61% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Wisconsin alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #9 safest of 25 Die-cut paper products (except employers in Wisconsin.

Dixon Ticonderoga Company (572 employees, TCR 2.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 62 employees and a TCR of 3.2 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 0200400600 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Dixon Ticonderoga Company
Dixon Ticonderoga Company (572 employees, TCR 2.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 62 employees and a TCR of 3.2

Dixon Ticonderoga Company has more employees than the Die-cut paper products (except for offic median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.2. 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 1.1 0.7 6 0 0
2020 3.0 2.8 17 0 0
2019 3.1 1.4 18 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

322299 · WI · Appleton

236 Die-cut paper products (except for office use) made from purchased paper or paperboard employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 12,834 rated employers in Wisconsin with headcount on file · 356 employers in Appleton, WI · 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 Tetra Pak Materials LLC 2.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Stavo Industries 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Burrows - Franklin 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR A GROUP INC. 2.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE Robinson Inc 572 FTE
STATE-SIZE Plant 3 571 FTE
STATE-SIZE Endries International Inc 573 FTE
STATE-SIZE Onalaska Support Services 571 FTE
CITY-NEAR ThedaCare Regional Medical Center Appleton 1,649 FTE
CITY-NEAR ThedaCare Regional Medical Center-Appleton 1,563 FTE
CITY-NEAR Northern Operations 1,321 FTE
CITY-NEAR Fox Valley Technical College (WI) 1,279 FTE
NAT-TCR USCS- Lavergne, TN 2.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Ruan Transport Corporation T-006 2.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Jameson Roofing Company 2.4 TCR
NAT-TCR 43561f - Fort Smith 2.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Stellar Staffing Solutions LLC 572 FTE
NAT-SIZE A.T. Still University of Health Sciences 572 FTE
NAT-SIZE Sony DADC 572 FTE
NAT-SIZE 6458-ZNIL 572 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.