ENHANCING THE IMAGE OF THE TRANSPORTATION DANGEROUS GOODS PROFESSIONAL SURVEY RESULTS BARBARA MCINTOSH, PH.D., SPHR SEPTEMBER 15, 2012

Transcription

1 ENHANCING THE IMAGE OF THE TRANSPORTATION DANGEROUS GOODS PROFESSIONAL SURVEY RESULTS BARBARA MCINTOSH, PH.D., SPHR SEPTEMBER 15, 2012 The professional responsible for transporting dangerous goods is in a rapidly changing occupation and frequently in a position where there is little management understanding nor recognition of the position s increasing demands. Specifically, the complexity surrounding the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) required may not be delineated in a formal job description which is subsequently used in performance appraisals and compensation determination. In an effort to identify the personal characteristics, types of jobs, location within specific departments, and other organization characteristics that might identify current perceptions about job description adequacy and potential avenues for achieving greater recognition, The Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc. (COSTHA) surveyed its membership. The following analysis of the survey results first review individual characteristics related to perceptions about job descriptions, followed by organizational characteristics, characteristics related to perceived recognition of the hazmat function, characteristics related to perceived training need, characteristics related to salary range, and finally, regression analysis of characteristics related to job description and regression analysis of characteristics related to satisfaction with recognition of the hazmat function. METHODS: Using Survey Methods.com, 1458 dangerous goods professions were sent the survey, Enhancing the Image of the Transportation Dangerous Goods Professional, on January 26, 2012; and 191 responded, for a response rate of 13%. The only questions where there were missing data were those asking for company name, city location, and country location. Answers to these questions were not necessary for data analysis. Descriptive statistics including number of responses and percent response, as well as associated bar charts, are included in the Survey Methods.com report. In this report, descriptive statistics were used to summarize the frequency and percentage of each variable of interest by outcome category. The crude association between each variable of interest and the outcome was assessed using a Chi-Square test of independence. Categories of the variables of interest were collapsed as necessary to ensure adequate cell counts. Ordered logistic regression was used to determine the adjusted relationship between each variable and the outcome in multivariable analysis. Ordered logistic regression is an extension of logistic regression that allows for categorical outcomes with more than two levels (e.g.: Satisfied, Neutral, Dissatisfied ). All variables of interest were included in the initial multivariable model for each analysis. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were established using this full model. Variables were removed individually and a likelihood ratio test was performed to assess the significance of the overall variable (all levels) in the model. The proportional odds assumption was checked for each model as variables were removed. All analysis was performed in SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary NC). The Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc Hill House Court Fairfax Station, VA Phone: 518/ Fax: 518/ mail@costha.com

2 INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO JOB DESCRIPTION: Employee education level: A borderline significant difference in perception of job description was observed by education level (p=0.09). Employees with a graduate degree were more likely to report that their job function was not described (21% compared to 10% (high school) and 13% (college)). Employees with a 2- or 4-year college degree were more likely to respond that their job function was well described (53% compared to 35% (high school) and 33% (graduate degree). Years in current position: No significant difference in perception of job description was observed by years in current position (p=0.89) Years in hazmat function: A significant difference in perception of job description was observed by years in a hazmat function. The longer the tenure in a hazmat function, the more likely the employee was to report that their job function was somewhat described or well described compared to not described (p=0.04)

3 Salary: No significant difference in perception of job description was observed by salary range (measured by category or dichotomized as greater or less than $100K). Need for additional training: No significant difference in perception of job description was observed by perceived need for additional training. Recognition of hazmat function: A significant difference in perception of job description was observed by level of satisfaction with recognition of the hazmat function (p=0.01). Employees who were satisfied with the recognition of the hazmat function were most likely to report well described job functions, while employees who were dissatisfied with recognition were least likely to report well described job functions. ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO JOB DESCRIPTION: Percent of material transported that is hazardous: No significant difference in perception of job description was observed between categories of hazardous material transportation (p=0.18). Organization size: No significant difference in perception of job description was observed by organization size (measured by number of domestic employees) (p=0.27). Results for the number of employees internationally were similar to those for number of employees domestically (p=0.24). Location of hazmat function (department): A strong significant difference in perception of job description was observed by location of hazmat function (p<0.01). Employees performing hazmat functions in EHS and Safety departments were most likely to report well described job functions (63%). Employees performing hazmat functions in Logistics and Procurement departments were most likely to report that their job functions were not described (21%). Collapsed categories: Compliance = Compliance + Regulatory Affairs + Legal EHS, Safety = EHS + Safety Logistics = Logistics + Procurement Transportation

4 Company type: A significant difference in perception of job description was observed by company type (p=0.04). In particular, employees in Transporter companies (25% of companies) were the least likely to report that their job function was not described (2%) and most likely to report that their job function was well described (57%).

5 Table 1: Summary statistics regarding job description Job description Not described Somewhat described Well described N (%) N (%) N (%) p value Education level 0.09 High school 2 (10%) 11 (55%) 7 (35%) College degree (2 or 4 year) 12 (13%) 30 (33%) 48 (54%) Graduate degree 12 (21%) 26 (46%) 19 (33%) Years in current position years 11 (18%) 24 (41%) 24 (41%) 5-10 years 7 (13%) 23 (43%) 24 (44%) years 4 (10%) 17 (41%) 20 (49%) 20+ years 5 (24%) 6 (28%) 10 (48%) Years in hazmat function years 7 (26%) 12 (44%) 8 (30%) 5-10 years 4 (18%) 9 (41%) 9 (41%) years 11 (19%) 19 (32%) 29 (49%) 20+ years 5 (7%) 30 (45%) 32 (48%) Salary 0.88 Under 75K 7 (17%) 18 (44%) 16 (39%) K 7 (16%) 16 (36%) 22 (48%) 100K+ 10 (18%) 23 (42%) 22 (40%) Traning Need 0.62 Strong need 11 (14%) 31 (40%) 35 (46%) Neutral 11 (17%) 28 (44%) 24 (39%) Weak or no need 5 (15%) 10 (30%) 18 (55%) Recognition of hazmat function 0.01 Satisfied with recognition 11 (12%) 31 (34%) 50 (54%) Neutral 11 (24%) 16 (35%) 19 (41%) Dissatisfied with recognition 4 (13%) 20 (62%) 8 (25%) Percent of material transported % 15 (17%) 35 (39%) 40 (44%) 11-50% 5 (11%) 15 (32%) 27 (57%) 51+% 6 (19%) 16 (52%) 9 (29%) Organization size (# domestic employees) (22%) 6 (33%) 8 (45%) (15%) 20 (61%) 8 (24%) 1,000-9,999 7 (17%) 17 (40%) 18 (43%) 10, (13%) 16 (36%) 23 (51%) Department location of hazmat function <0.01 Compliance, regulatory affairs, legal 4 (14%) 20 (69%) 5 (17%) ESH, safety 8 (13%) 15 (24%) 40 (63%) Logistics, procurement 14 (21%) 26 (39%) 27 (40%) Transportation 1 (7%) 8 (57%) 5 (36%) Company type 0.04 Chemical 3 (13%) 9 (37%) 12 (50%) Manufacturer 10 (16%) 31 (50%) 21 (34%) Pharmaceuticals 6 (29%) 4 (19%) 11 (52%) Service Provider 5 (24%) 8 (38%) 8 (38%) Transporter 1 (2%) 17 (41%) 24 (57%)

6 CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO PERCEIVED RECOGNITION OF HAZMAT FUNCTION: Employee education level: No significant difference in satisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function was observed by education level (p=0.30). Years in current position: No significant difference in satisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function was observed by years in current position (p=0.75). Years in hazmat function: No significant difference in satisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function was observed by years in a hazmat position (p=0.17). Percent of material transported that is hazardous: A significant difference in satisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function was observed by the percent of hazardous material transported by the company (p=0.03). Employees were most likely to report satisfaction and least likely to report dissatisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function in companies in which over 50% of the material transported is hazmat. Organization size: No significant difference in satisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function was observed based on company size (measured by number of employees either domestically or internationally) (p=0.55 domestic employees; p=0.34 international employees). Company type: A borderline significant difference in satisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function was observed based on company type (p=0.09). Employees in service provider companies were most likely to report satisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function, and least likely to report dissatisfaction. Employees in distribution companies were the most likely to report dissatisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function (this was the only company type in which more employees reported dissatisfaction than satisfaction).

7

8 Table 3: Summary statistics regarding recognition of hazmat function Recognition of hazmat function Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied N (%) N (%) N (%) p value Education level 0.30 High school 11 (55%) 4 (20%) 5 (25%) College degree (2 or 4 year) 53 (61%) 22 (25%) 12 (14%) Graduate degree 25 (45%) 18 (32%) 13 (23%) Years in current position years 28 (49%) 16 (28%) 13 (23%) 5-10 years 31 (59%) 15 (28%) 7 (13%) years 22 (56%) 8 (21%) 9 (23%) 20+ years 11 (53%) 7 (33%) 3 (14%) Years in hazmat function years 15 (58%) 5 (19%) 6 (23%) 5-10 years 11 (52%) 4 (19%) 6 (29%) years 26 (46%) 23 (40%) 8 (14%) 20+ years 40 (61%) 14 (21%) 12 (18%) Percent of material transported % 51 (59%) 21 (24%) 15 (17%) 11-50% 19 (40%) 17 (36%) 11 (24%) 51+% 20 (67%) 8 (27%) 2 (6%) Organization size (# domestic employees) (78%) 3 (17%) 1 (5%) (52%) 8 (26%) 7 (22%) 1,000-9, (54%) 12 (29%) 7 (17%) 10, (51%) 12 (27%) 10 (22%) Company type 0.09 Chemical 11 (48%) 10 (43%) 2 (9%) Manufacturer 31 (52%) 15 (25%) 14 (23%) Pharmaceuticals 11 (52%) 7 (33%) 3 (15%) Service Provider 11 (55%) 4 (20%) 5 (25%) Transporter 26 (62%) 9 (21%) 7 (17%) CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO PERCEIVED TRAINING NEED: Employee education level: No significant difference in perceived training need was observed by education level (p=0.14). Type of degree: No significant difference in perceived training need was observed by the type of degree (p=0.17). Type of degree was collapsed into the following categories: Science (n=46) Engineering (n=24) Business (n=60) Other (including liberal arts) (n=25)

9 Entry into hazmat function: A borderline significant difference in perceived training need was observed by the type of entry into the hazmat function (intentional versus emerging) (p=0.07). Employees who emerged into the hazmat function were more likely to report a strong need for training than employees who entered the function intentionally. Years in current position: No significant difference in perceived training need was observed by years in current position (p=0.16). Years in hazmat function: No significant difference in perceived training need was observed by years in a hazmat position (p=0.48). Department: No significant difference in perceived training need was observed based on the department in which the hazmat function is located (p=0.10). Departments were collapsed into the following categories: Compliance = Compliance + Regulatory Affairs + Legal (n=29) EHS, Safety = EHS + Safety (n=63) Logistics = Logistics + Procurement (n=65) Transportation (n=14) Percent of material transported that is hazardous: No significant difference in perceived training need was observed by the percent of hazardous material transported (p=0.92). Organization size: No significant difference in perceived training need was observed by the organization size (measured by number of employees domestically or internationally) (p=0.79 for domestic employees; p=0.11 for international employees). Company type: No significant difference in perceived training need was observed by the type of company (chemical, manufacturer, pharma, etc) (p=0.96).

10 Table 4: Summary statistics regarding perceived training need Training need Strong Neutral Weak or none N (%) N (%) N (%) p value Education level 0.14 High school 11 (55%) 8 (40%) 1 (5%) College degree (2 or 4 year) 35 (40%) 38 (43%) 15 (17%) Graduate degree 26 (46%) 16 (28%) 15 (26%) Type of degree 0.17 Science 20 (44%) 18 (39%) 8 (17%) Engineering 13 (54%) 8 (33%) 3 (13%) Business 27 (45%) 24 (40%) 9 (15%) Other 8 (32%) 7 (28%) 10 (40%) Entry into hazmat function 0.07 Intentional 24 (42%) 17 (29%) 17 (29%) Emerging 43 (49%) 32 (37%) 12 (14%) Years in current position years 31 (53%) 23 (39%) 5 (8%) 5-10 years 20 (37%) 20 (27%) 14 (26%) years 15 (39%) 13 (33%) 11 (28%) 20+ years 11 (53%) 7 (33%) 3 (14%) Years in hazmat function years 16 (59%) 9 (33%) 2 (8%) 5-10 years 10 (45%) 9 (41%) 3 (14%) years 26 (45%) 20 (34%) 12 (21%) 20+ years 25 (38%) 25 (38%) 16 (24%) Department location of hazmat function 0.10 Compliance, regulatory affairs, legal 14 (48%) 11 (38%) 4 (14%) ESH, safety 33 (52%) 18 (29%) 12 (19%) Logistics, procurement 21 (32%) 32 (49%) 12 (19%) Transportation 8 (57%) 2 (14%) 4 (29%) Percent of material transported % 39 (44%) 33 (38%) 16 (18%) 11-50% 23 (49%) 16 (34%) 8 (17%) 51+% 12 (39%) 12 (39%) 7 (22%) Organization size (# domestic employees) (39%) 7 (39%) 4 (22%) (41%) 13 (41%) 6 (18%) 1,000-9, (55%) 13 (31%) 6 (14%) 10, (38%) 19 (42%) 9 (20%) Company type 0.96 Chemical 12 (50%) 7 (29%) 5 (21%) Manufacturer 25 (41%) 23 (38%) 13 (21%) Pharmaceuticals 9 (43%) 8 (38%) 4 (19%) Service Provider 10 (48%) 9 (43%) 2 (9%) Transporter 19 (46%) 15 (37%) 7 (17%)

11 CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO SALARY RANGE: Employee education level: A strong significant difference in reported salary range was observed by education level (p<0.01). Increasing education level (high school, college, graduate) was associated with increasing salary range. Years in current position: No significant difference in reported salary range was observed by years in current position (p=0.23) Years in hazmat function: A significant difference in reported salary range was observed by years in a hazmat function. A longer tenure in a hazmat function was associated with an increase in salary range (p=0.01). The graph below shows the average years in current and hazmat position by salary range category. Percent of material transported that is hazardous: No significant difference in reported salary range was observed between categories of hazardous material transport (p=0.10).

12 Organization size: A significant difference in reported salary range was observed by organization size measured as number of employees domestically. No significant difference in salary range was observed by number of employees internationally (although this may be due to a smaller sample size). Employees in large companies (10,000+ domestic employees) were most likely to report salaries above $100K. Employees in small companies (<100 domestic employees) were least likely to report salaries above $100K and most likely to report salaries under $75K. Company type: No significant difference in reported salary range was observed by company type (chemical, manufacturer, pharma, etc) (p=0.24).

13 Table 2: Summary statistics regarding salary range Salary range Under 75K K 100K + N (%) N (%) N (%) p value Education level <0.01 High school 13 (72%) 3 (17%) 2 (11%) College degree (2 or 4 year) 18 (24%) 27 (37%) 29 (39%) Graduate degree 5 (12%) 15 (36%) 22 (52%) Years in current position years 14 (27%) 23 (44%) 15 (29%) 5-10 years 11 (27%) 11 (27%) 18 (46%) years 12 (37%) 7 (22%) 13 (41%) 20+ years 4 (24%) 4 (24%) 9 (52%) Years in hazmat function years 10 (48%) 7 (33%) 4 (19%) 5-10 years 6 (33%) 4 (22%) 8 (45%) years 16 (31%) 16 (31%) 19 (38%) 20+ years 9 (18%) 18 (35%) 24 (47%) Percent of material transported % 14 (20%) 25 (36%) 31 (44%) 11-50% 16 (42%) 10 (26%) 12 (32%) 51+% 9 (31%) 8 (28%) 12 (41%) Organization size (# domestic employees) (69%) 1 (6%) 4 (25%) (30%) 8 (30%) 11 (40%) 1,000-9,999 8 (24%) 12 (35%) 14 (41%) 10, (19%) 10 (27%) 20 (54%) Company type 0.24 Chemical 4 (19%) 5 (24%) 12 (57%) Manufacturer 18 (36%) 17 (34%) 15 (30%) Pharmaceuticals 2 (13%) 5 (33%) 8 (54%) Service Provider 5 (31%) 3 (19%) 8 (50%) Transporter 11 (30%) 15 (42%) 10 (28%)

14 REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO JOB DESCRIPTION Individual characteristics After adjusting for all individual characteristics, the characteristic most strongly related to perception of job description was satisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function. Compared to those who were satisfied with the recognition of the hazmat function, those neutral or dissatisfied were less likely to report that their job description was well described or somewhat described as opposed to not described. These results were of borderline statistical significance (p=0.08 for the overall variable in the model). The next most important factor in predicting the perception of job description was education. Compared to those with a high school degree, those with a college degree were more likely to report that their job description was well described or somewhat described as opposed to not described, although the difference was not statistically significant. Those with a graduate degree were less likely to report a well described or somewhat described job description than those with a high school degree, but this result was also not statistically significant. Years in current position and years in hazmat position were not significant in the multivariable model. Salary range and perceived training need were highly not significant in univariable analysis and were not included in the multivariable model. Table 5: Odds of reporting "Somewhat described" or "Well described" as opposed to "Not described" job description; individual characteristics N (%) OR 95% CI P value* Education level 0.22 High school 21 (12%) Ref - College degree (2 or 4 year) 100 (55%) 1.51 (0.59, 3.88) Graduate degree 61 (33%) 0.84 (0.32, 2.21) Years in current position years 59 (34%) Ref years 54 (31%) 0.92 (0.32, 2.01) years 41 (23%) 1.12 (0.47, 2.65) 20+ years 21 (12%) 0.76 (0.27, 2.18) Years in hazmat function years 27 (15%) Ref years 22 (13%) 1.53 (0.46, 5.05) years 59 (34%) 1.84 (0.70, 4.86) 20+ years 67 (38%) 2.39 (0.92, 6.24) Recognition of hazmat function 0.08 Satisfied with recognition 92 (54%) Ref - Neutral 46 (27%) 0.55 (0.27, 1.12) Dissatisfied with recognition 32 (19%) 0.46 (0.21, 1.03) * P value is for the inclusion of all levels of the variable in the model Note: Salary range and perceived training need were not significantly associated with perception of job description in univariable analysis

15 Organization characteristics In multivariable analysis, the organizational characteristic most strongly associated with perception of job description was the department in which the hazmat function was located. Compared to employees located in the ESH/Safety department, those located in Compliance/Regulatory/Legal departments or Logistics/Procurement departments were significantly less likely to report that their job description was well described or somewhat described as opposed to not described (p=0.002 for overall variable in the model). Overall, percent of material transported that is hazardous was weakly associated with perception of job description (p=0.06 for the overall variable in the model). Compared to employees in companies transporting a low amount of hazardous material (0-10%), those in companies transporting a moderate amount of hazardous material (11-50%) were more likely to report that their job description was well described or somewhat described as opposed to not described. Those in companies transporting a large amount of hazardous material (51+%) were less likely to report a well described or somewhat described job description. However, these individual comparisons were not statistically significant. Organization size and company type were not significantly associated with perception of job description in the multivariable analysis. Table 6: Odds of reporting "Somewhat described" or "Well described" as opposed to "Not described" job description; organizational characteristics N (%) OR 95% CI P value* Percent of material transported % 100 (55%) Ref % 50 (27%) 1.56 (0.75, 3.23) 51+% 33 (18%) 0.51 (0.21, 1.20) Organization size (# domestic employees) (15%) Ref (22%) 0.63 (0.20, 2.01) 1,000-9, (30%) 0.59 (0.19, 1.89) 10, (33%) 1.07 (0.32, 3.67) Department location of hazmat function Compliance, regulatory affairs, legal 34 (18%) 0.26 (0.10, 0.65) ESH, safety 68 (36%) Ref - Logistics, procurement 43 (23%) 0.22 (0.09, 0.53) Transportation 15 (8%) 0.53 (0.16, 1.74) Other 28 (15%) 1.01 (0.38, 2.71) Company type 0.91 Chemical 25 (14%) Ref - Manufacturer 64 (34%) 0.88 (0.32, 2.39) Pharmaceuticals 23 (12%) 0.66 (0.19, 2.28) Service Provider 23 (12%) 0.79 (0.24, 2.70) Transporter 51 (28%) 1.14 (0.38, 3.42) * P value is for the inclusion of all levels of the variable in the model

16 Individual and organizational characteristics combined Organizational characteristics appeared to be stronger predictors of perception of job description than individual characteristics. Percent of material transported that is hazardous and department location of the hazmat function were significantly associated with the perception of job description. Compared to those in companies transporting 51%+ hazardous material, those in companies transporting 11-50% hazardous material were significantly more likely to report that their job descriptions were well described or somewhat described as opposed to not described. Compared to those located in EHS/Safety departments, those located in Compliance/Regulatory Affairs/Legal or Logistic/Procurement departments were significantly less likely to report that their job descriptions were well described or somewhat described as opposed to not described. Table 7: Odds of reporting "Somewhat described" or "Well described" as opposed to "Not described" job description; individual and organizational characteristics combined Individual characteristics N (%) OR 95% CI P value* Education level 0.27 High school 21 (12%) Ref - College degree (2 or 4 year) 100 (55%) 1.85 (0.60, 5.70) Graduate degree 61 (33%) 0.96 (0.29, 3.22) Years in current position years 59 (34%) Ref years 54 (31%) 0.66 (0.23, 1.87) years 41 (23%) 1.38 (0.43, 4.45) 20+ years 21 (12%) 0.74 (0.19, 2.79) Years in hazmat function years 27 (15%) Ref years 22 (13%) 0.63 (0.13, 3.15) years 59 (34%) 1.04 (0.26, 4.21) 20+ years 67 (38%) 1.68 (0.41, 6.94) Recognition of hazmat function 0.19 Satisfied with recognition 92 (54%) Ref - Neutral 46 (27%) 0.54 (0.21, 1.36) Dissatisfied with recognition 32 (19%) 0.43 (0.15, 1.26) Organizational characteristics Percent of material transported % 100 (55%) 2.13 (0.69, 6.59) 11-50% 50 (27%) 4.98 (1.48, 16.8) 51+% 33 (18%) Ref - Organization size (# domestic employees) (15%) Ref (22%) 1.11 (0.28, 4.38) 1,000-9, (30%) 0.92 (0.25, 3.44)

17 10, (33%) 2.19 (0.51, 0.37) Department location of hazmat function 0.02 Compliance, regulatory affairs, legal 34 (18%) 0.19 (0.06, 0.60) ESH, safety 68 (36%) Ref - Logistics, procurement 43 (23%) 0.17 (0.05, 0.60) Transportation 15 (8%) 0.48 (0.10, 2.34) Other 28 (15%) 0.69 (0.20, 2.42) Company type 0.68 Chemical 25 (14%) Ref - Manufacturer 64 (34%) 0.65 (0.17, 2.53) Pharmaceuticals 23 (12%) 0.31 (0.07, 1.37) Service Provider 23 (12%) 0.58 (0.14, 2.47) Transporter 51 (28%) 0.56 (0.14, 2.18) * P value is for the inclusion of all levels of the variable in the model Note: Salary range and perceived training need were not significantly associated with perception of job description in univariable analysis

18 REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO SATISFACTION WITH RECOGNITION OF HAZMAT FUNCTION In multivariable analysis, education was most strongly related to satisfaction with recognition of the hazmat function, although no variables reached statistical significance. Compared to those with a high school degree, those with a college degree were more likely to report that they were satisfied or neutral with the recognition of the hazmat function as opposed to dissatisfied. Compared to those with a high school degree, those with a graduate degree were less likely to report that they were satisfied or neutral with the recognition of the hazmat function as opposed to dissatisfied. Again, these results did not achieve statistical significance. Years in hazmat function, percent of material transported that is hazardous, and company type were not significantly associated with satisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function in multivariable analysis. Years in current position and organization size were highly not significant in univariable analysis and were not included in the multivariable model. Table 8: Odds of reporting "Satisfied" or "Neutral" as opposed to "Dissatisfied" with recognition of the hazmat function N (%) OR 95% CI P value* Education level 0.11 High school 21 (12%) Ref - College degree (2 or 4 year) 100 (55%) 1.38 (0.51, 3.72) Graduate degree 61 (33%) 0.65 (0.23, 1.85) Years in hazmat function years 27 (15%) Ref years 22 (13%) 0.73 (0.22, 2.44) years 59 (34%) 0.74 (0.27, 2.06) 20+ years 67 (38%) 0.94 (0.35, 2.55) Percent of material transported % 100 (55%) Ref % 50 (27%) 0.51 (0.24, 1.05) 51+% 33 (18%) 1.48 (0.56, 3.92) Company type 0.95 Chemical 25 (14%) Ref - Manufacturer 64 (34%) 1.07 (0.38, 3.02) Pharmaceuticals 23 (12%) 1.36 (0.40, 4.68) Service Provider 23 (12%) 0.96 (0.27, 3.40) Transporter 51 (28%) 1.39 (0.45, 4.33) * P value is for the inclusion of all levels of the variable in the model Note: Years in current position and organization size were not significantly associated with recognition of the hazmat function in univariable analysis

19 Including department location of hazmat function Department location of the hazmat function was not an overall significant predictor of satisfaction in the multivariable model (p=0.14). However, significant differences were seen between levels of this variable. Compared to those located in EHS/Safety departments, those located in the Logistics/Procurement and Transportation departments were significantly less likely to report being satisfied or neutral as opposed to dissatisfied with the recognition of the hazmat function. After adjustment for department location of the hazmat function, percent of material transported was of borderline statistical significance in the multivariable analysis (p=0.06). This suggests that department location may confound the relationship between percent of material transported and satisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function. It is possible that percent of material transported is associated with the department location (e.g. companies transporting a large percentage of hazardous material may have a dedicated department). After adjusting for department location, percent of material transported is a borderline significant predictor of satisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function. Table 9: Odds of reporting "Satisfied" or "Neutral" as opposed to "Dissatisfied" with recognition of the hazmat function N (%) OR 95% CI P value* Education level 0.11 High school 21 (12%) Ref - College degree (2 or 4 year) 100 (55%) 1.31 (0.47, 3.39) Graduate degree 61 (33%) 0.51 (0.17, 1.51) Years in hazmat function years 27 (15%) Ref years 22 (13%) 0.73 (0.21, 2.52) years 59 (34%) 0.69 (0.24, 1.96) 20+ years 67 (38%) 0.95 (0.34, 2.68) Percent of material transported % 100 (55%) Ref % 50 (27%) 0.49 (0.23, 1.05) 51+% 33 (18%) 1.47 (0.55, 3.95) Company type 0.87 Chemical 25 (14%) Ref - Manufacturer 64 (34%) 1.66 (0.55, 4.98) Pharmaceuticals 23 (12%) 1.64 (0.46, 5.81) Service Provider 23 (12%) 1.07 (0.29, 3.94) Transporter 51 (28%) 1.57 (0.49, 5.01) Department location of hazmat function 0.14 Compliance, regulatory affairs, legal 34 (18%) 0.85 (0.32, 2.29) ESH, safety 68 (36%) Ref - Logistics, procurement 43 (23%) 0.39 (0.16, 0.99) Transportation 15 (8%) 0.22 (0.06, 0.81) Other 28 (15%) 0.74 (0.27, 2.00) * P value is for the inclusion of all levels of the variable in the model

20 Note: Years in current position and organization size were not significantly associated with recognition of the hazmat function in univariable analysis RESULTS Individual Characteristics: Those employees with graduate degrees and those with the shortest tenure in the profession were the most likely to perceive that the job is not well defined. Significantly, those who reported that the job was well described were the most satisfied with the recognition of the hazmat function. Organization Characteristics: The location of the hazmat function within the organization was significantly related to the perception of the job description. Employees in Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) and Safety departments were significantly more likely to say that their job was well described. Those in Logistics and Procurement were most likely to report that their job was NOT well defined. Hazmat positions were best described in transporter companies. More than 50% of the employees in the pharmaceutical and chemical firms also described their jobs as well defined. At the same time pharmaceutical firms were the most likely to be described as having no job descriptions (29%). Manufacturers and service/distributors were least likely to be perceived as having well described hazmat jobs. Characteristics Related to Perceived Recognition of the Hazmat Function: No individual level characteristics were significantly related to satisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function. Employees were most likely to report satisfaction and least likely to report dissatisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function in companies in which over 50% of the material transported is hazmat. Employees in service provider companies were most likely to report satisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function and least likely to report dissatisfaction. Employees in distribution companies were the most likely to report dissatisfaction with the recognition of the hazmat function (this was the only company type in which more employees reported dissatisfaction than satisfaction). Characteristics Related to Perceived Training Need: Employees who emerged into the hazmat function were more likely to report a strong need for training than employees who entered the function intentionally (borderline significant). No other individual nor organization characteristic was significantly related to perceived training need.

21 Characteristics Related to Salary Range: There was a significant difference in salary for those employees with higher education and years in the hazmat function. Years in current position was not significantly related. Employees in large companies (10,000 + domestic employees) were significantly more likely to report salaries above $100,000. Regression Results Related to the Job Description: Considering individual and organization characteristics combined, two organization level characteristics were significant in predicting whether an employee s hazmat position was well-defined or not. Those characteristics were the percent of material transported and the location of the department within the organization. Compared to those in companies transporting 51%+ hazardous material, those in companies transporting 11-50% hazardous material were significantly more likely to report that their job descriptions were well described or somewhat described as opposed to not described. Compared to those located in the EHS/Safety department, those located in Compliance/Regulatory Affairs/Legal or Logistic/Procurement departments were significantly less likely to report that their job descriptions were well described or somewhat described as opposed to not described.