General warehousing and storage · Massachusetts

Sika Canton 225

Canton, MA · ~44 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.8
Avg TCR
5.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Sika Canton 225 runs at 14% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical General warehousing and storage workplace, earning a grade A.

Sika Canton 225: 0.8 TCR = 14% of General warehousing and storage BLS 5.8 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Sika Canton 225 safety composite

Sika Canton 225 scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 92% 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).

B

79/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0.83 per 100 workers

Safer than 92% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 86% 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

−2.3

2016→2024

Sika Canton 225 injury rate improved

Sika Canton 225's TCR fell 2.3 from 2.3 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2019 at 2.7 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=2.3 · 2017=0.0 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=2.7 · 2020=0.0 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=2.5 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 493110 · Canton, MA AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade A · TCR 0.8 · 14% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #10/121
  • PHOTO Nice-Pak Customer Fu…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 3 inj
  • SIZE ~44 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Nice-Pak Customer Fullfillment Center (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Sika Canton 225 in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Sika Canton 225 averages 0.8 TCR (14% of the General warehousing and storage BLS benchmark).

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

Sika Canton 225 TCR series: 2016=2.3 · 2017=0 · 2018=0 · 2019=2.7 · 2020=0 · 2021=0 · 2022=0 · 2023=2.5 · 2024=0 · BLS 5.8

Where Sika Canton 225 falls in its industry

9,477 General warehousing and storag establishments

Safer than 92% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Massachusetts alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #10 safest of 121 General warehousing and storag employers in Massachusetts.

Sika Canton 225 (44 employees, TCR 0.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 92 employees and a TCR of 3.5 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 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,000 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Sika Canton 225
Sika Canton 225 (44 employees, TCR 0.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 92 employees and a TCR of 3.5

Sika Canton 225 has fewer employees than the General warehousing and storage median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.5. 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
2024 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 2.5 0.0 1 0 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 2.7 2.7 1 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2016 2.3 2.3 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

493110 · MA · Canton

9,477 General warehousing and storage employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 10,108 rated employers in Massachusetts with headcount on file · 98 employers in Canton, MA · 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 Nice-Pak Customer Fullfillment Center 0.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Groveport PPE 0.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Amazon.com Services LLC - PDK2 0.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Expeditors International 0.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE 103098 - NGL - Commercial Point - Vpzer & Pump 44 FTE
STATE-SIZE Infrastructure GLX 44 FTE
STATE-SIZE TEAM SUNSHINE CONSTRUCTION, LLC 44 FTE
STATE-SIZE Ambient Temperature Corporation 44 FTE
CITY-NEAR Point32Health Canton 4,420 FTE
CITY-NEAR Organogenesis (Campus: 85, 65, and 150 Dan Rd Canton Locations) 855 FTE
CITY-NEAR Organogenesis (Campus: 85, 65, and 150 Dan Rd Canton Location's) 631 FTE
CITY-NEAR E.M. Duggan, Inc. 432 FTE
NAT-TCR Nice-Pak Customer Fullfillment Center 0.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Edgerton Trucking, Inc. 0.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Ralph W. Earl Co., Inc. 0.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Flame Engineering Inc 0.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Texas Pneumatic Tools 44 FTE
NAT-SIZE Courtyard By Marriott 44 FTE
NAT-SIZE Peco Foods Inc.-Feedmill 44 FTE
NAT-SIZE Main 44 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: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.