American Journal of Economic and
Management Business
p-ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
e-ISSN: 2835-5199
Vol.
2 No. 7 Juli 2023
BALANCED SCORECARD AND COMPANY PERFORMANCE
Shalli Afdallash, Rina Trisnawati
Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta,
Indonesia.
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract
Performance
is the result of an effort that is used to fulfill
the achievements of a person or organization. Company performance can be used
as a benchmark in knowing the success of the company's strategy, besides that
performance measurement also shows the contribution of workers in improving an
achievement in accordance with the company's goals and objectives. This study
aims to analyze the relationship between balanced
scorecards, namely financial perspective, customer perspective, internal
business process perspective, learning perspective and growth on financial
performance in consumer goods industry companies listed on the IDX for the
2019-2022 period. With a total sample of 160 samples in the research period for
4 years. The sampling technique used in this study was purposive sampling. With
quantitative descriptive data analysis techniques. Based on the results of the
financial perspective with measurements using ROE and ROA ratios, average
performance results with a good level of performance are obtained. The customer
perspective shows the same results as the financial perspective with a good
level of performance. As for the perspective of business and internal
processes, the results show average performance with a fairly good level of
performance. The learning and growth perspective shows excellent performance
level results in the company.
Keywords: Balanced Scorecard;
Financial Perspective; Customer Perspective; Business and Internal Process
Perspective; Learning and Growth Perspective; Company Performance.
This article is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
International
INTRODUCTION
Company performance has a way of measuring it to see
information accurately. Performance measurement of companies begins using
traditional approaches such as finance, because it is very easy to calculate
and analyze. But in reality, the non-financial perspective
can be used as a way to measure company performance to determine strategies to
implement goals (Tanaka et al., 2020). Therefore, with the era of increasingly advanced development with rapid
processing of company performance for analysis can be easily done. By using the
Balanced Scorecard measurement, the company has a major influence through
corporate entities that have influence from inside and outside the company to
achieve the success of the designed strategy. Therefore, to be able to improve
company performance, you can apply a balanced scorecard as a tool to measure
company performance in terms of financial and non-financial (Albuhisi & Abdallah, 2018).
The balanced scorecard measurement component
consists of financial, customer, internal business processes, and learning
growth perspectives (Norreklit, 2000). The financial perspective is very helpful in analyzing
the company's performance so that it can be an indicator of the achievement of
a company's performance in terms of generating profits. From a customer
perspective, this perspective looks at how customers view the products and
services produced by the company (Ahmed & Rahman, 2015). The point of view of the perspective of internal business processes, in
this perspective how companies are good at choosing market segmentation, not
only terms of maintaining good market segments but can create future product
innovations produced by the company, or if service companies can create the
development of future performance innovations. And the perspective of growth
and learning, this perspective of the company is able to focus on the relation
of human resources itself (Storey, 2014).
Several researchers have previously conducted
research related to the effect of the application of balanced scorecard on
company performance, including, Alipok et al., (2021) who examined the use of the balance scorecard method in measuring
company performance. With the results of the study showing that the company's
performance from a financial perspective is considered not good, from a
customer perspective it is considered quite good, from an internal business
perspective and a learning and growth perspective it is considered good (Vosloban, 2012). Then research conducted by Haykal et al., (2023) on company performance in a balanced scorecard perspective, shows that
the company's performance results are in the good category. Another study
conducted by Gusti et al., (2023) which examines the analysis of company performance based on a balanced
scorecard approach, shows the results that the perspective of financial and
customer performance in the category is not good, while the perspective of
internal business processes and the perspective of learning and growth shows
that the category is quite good. This study aims to analyze
the relevance of balanced scorecard with the perspective of finance, customers,
internal business processes and growth learning on company performance.
RESEARCH METHOD
This
research uses quantitative methods to analyze
problems in research that has been formulated (Nardi, 2018). The purpose of
this study is to analyze the balanced scorecard seen
from a financial perspective, customer perspective, internal business process
perspective, learning and growth perspective on company performance. The data
analysis technique carried out in this study is a quantitative descriptive
analysis technique. The data used in this study uses secondary data in the form
of data sourced from the financial statements of companies in the consumer good
industry sector listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) for the 2019-2022
period through the official website of www.idx.co.id.
The population of this study was 42 company data and based on these criteria,
40 samples of company data were obtained. So that in four years of observation,
namely 2019-2022, 160 company samples were obtained that could be used in
research.
Table 1 Sample Selection Process
|
Criterion |
Total |
|
Number of consumer goods sector companies listed on the
IDX during the 2019-2022 period |
42 |
|
Number of consumer goods sector companies that did not
present a complete annual report on the IDX during the 2019-2022 period |
2 |
|
Consumer good industry sector companies that
do not have complete data during the 2019-2022 period. |
0 |
|
Research Sample |
40 |
|
Year of Research |
0 |
|
Number of Research Samples for 4 years (40 x 4) |
160 |
In
carrying out a performance measurement, a reference to the performance range is
needed to get the rate (value), to measure performance, a comparison will be
made between achievements in a period with the previous period (Sumarlan & Setiadi, 2022). With the determination of the
score as follows:
Table 2 Score Determination Criteria
|
Performance
Range |
Rate (Value) |
In Score |
Level Performance |
|
<0% |
D |
1 |
Very Bad (TB) |
|
0-50% |
C |
2 |
Bad (CB) |
|
51-100% |
B |
3 |
Good (B) |
|
>100% |
A |
4 |
Very Bad (SB) |
Source:
Diana Riyana, (2017)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Financial
Perspectives
Analysis from a financial perspective is
carried out using financial statement data of companies listed on the Indonesia
Stock Exchange for the 2019-2022 period of the consumer good industry sector
using the calculation of the company's financial performance, namely ROA and
ROE. The calculation of the financial
perspective refers to research conducted by Sumarlan &
Setiadi, (2022) with the following formula:
Table 3 Analysis of Calculation Results and Range of
Financial Perspective Performance Assessment (ROA)
|
No. |
Code govermence
|
ROA (%) |
|||||||
|
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
Average Performance
Range ROA (%) |
Rate |
In Score |
Level peformance |
||
|
1 |
ADES |
10.200 |
14.163 |
20.379 |
22.179 |
16,73 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
2 |
AISA |
60.717 |
59.902 |
0,498 |
-3.414 |
29,426 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
3 |
ALTO |
-0,669 |
-0,95 |
-0,82 |
-1.576 |
-1,004 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
4 |
BTEK |
-1.685 |
-12.063 |
-2.552 |
-3.222 |
-4,881 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
5 |
BUDI |
2.134 |
3.096 |
3.064 |
2.188 |
2,62 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
6 |
CAMP |
7.258 |
4.053 |
8.661 |
11.282 |
7,814 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
7 |
CEKA |
15.466 |
11.605 |
11.021 |
12.844 |
12,734 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
8 |
CLEO |
10.501 |
10.128 |
13.404 |
11.550 |
11,396 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
9 |
COCO |
3.177 |
1.038 |
2.302 |
1.365 |
1,971 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
10 |
DLTA |
22.287 |
10.074 |
14.365 |
17.600 |
16,082 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
11 |
FOOD |
1.212 |
-14.284 |
-11.977 |
-18.577 |
-10,91 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
12 |
GOOD |
8.607 |
3.730 |
7.280 |
7.120 |
6,684 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
13 |
HOKI |
12.222 |
4.194 |
1.199 |
0,011 |
4,407 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
14 |
ICBP |
13.847 |
6.359 |
5.423 |
3.978 |
7,402 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
15 |
IIKP |
22.249 |
-12.100 |
-14.623 |
-19.114 |
-5,897 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
16 |
INDF |
6.136 |
5.365 |
6.264 |
5.095 |
5,715 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
17 |
KEJU |
19.026 |
8.164 |
84.979 |
99.257 |
52,856 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
18 |
MLBI |
41.621 |
9.825 |
22.782 |
27.405 |
25,408 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
19 |
MYOR |
10.775 |
10.609 |
6.080 |
8.844 |
9,077 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
20 |
PANI |
-1.033 |
0,228 |
1.025 |
1.809 |
0,507 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
21 |
PCAR |
-8.223 |
-15.441 |
1.274 |
4.798 |
-4,398 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
22 |
PSDN |
-3.374 |
-6.834 |
-11.662 |
-3.661 |
-6,383 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
23 |
ROTI |
6.429 |
4.830 |
6.767 |
10.465 |
7,123 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
24 |
SKLT |
5.683 |
5.495 |
9.506 |
7.245 |
6,982 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
25 |
STTP |
16.748 |
18.226 |
15.757 |
13.604 |
16,084 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
26 |
TBLA |
3.807 |
3.503 |
3.756 |
3.385 |
3,613 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
27 |
ULTJ |
15.675 |
12.676 |
17.238 |
13.089 |
14,669 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
28 |
GGRM |
13.835 |
9.781 |
6.231 |
3.139 |
8,246 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
29 |
HMSP |
26.956 |
17.275 |
13.443 |
11.542 |
17,304 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
30 |
ITIC |
-1.563 |
1.212 |
3.487 |
0,685 |
0,955 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
31 |
RMBA |
3.295 |
21.398 |
0,085 |
10.730 |
8,877 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
32 |
WIIM |
2.103 |
10.685 |
5.172 |
11.511 |
7,368 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
33 |
KINO |
10.980 |
2.163 |
1.965 |
-20.321 |
-1,303 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
34 |
MBTO |
-11.326 |
-20.675 |
-20.985 |
-5.879 |
-14,72 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
35 |
TCID |
5.689 |
-2.366 |
-3.325 |
0,761 |
0,19 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
36 |
UNVR |
35.802 |
34.885 |
30.197 |
29.287 |
32,543 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
37 |
CINT |
1.385 |
0,05 |
-19.933 |
-1.530 |
-5,007 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
38 |
KICI |
-2.076 |
-0,007 |
11.686 |
0,237 |
2,46 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
39 |
LMPI |
-5.649 |
-5.919 |
-2.040 |
-3.545 |
-4,288 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
40 |
WOOD |
3.951 |
5.284 |
7.871 |
2.546 |
4,913 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
Average |
58.614 |
54.618 |
55.518 |
56.017 |
56,192 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
Source: Processed data,
2023.
Based on the table of financial
perspective calculation results using Return
on Asset (ROA) in consumer goods sector companies listed in the table above, consumer goods sector companies ��related to financial performance in 2019 to
2020 decreased with a percentage in 2019 of 58.614% and in 2020 with an average
percentage of 54.618%, so that it decreased by 3, 996%. The decline in 2019 to
2020 occurred due to declining sales profit and a decrease in total asset
turnover (Atidhira & Yustina, 2017). Followed by the
following year, namely 2021, consumer goods sector companies increased as in
the previous year by 55.518%. However, it can bounce back in 2021 to 2022 with
a fairly progressive increase. In 2021, the company received an average
financial performance of 55.518%, while in 2022 the company received an average
performance of 56.017%. This is a slight increase in the consumer goods sector from 2021 to 2022 with a percentage of
0.499%. The increase in 2021 to 2022 occurred because the company has begun to
stabilize in relation to the net profit generated in the company.
Based on the ROA calculation table in the range of
financial performance assessment with the
consumer goods sector scorecard, where on average from 2019 to 2022
consumer goods sector companies get a
percentage of 56.192% by getting a B rate with a score of 3 so that
these are consumer goods ��sector companiesHave
a good category work level.
Table 4 Analysis of Calculation Results and Range of
Financial Perspective Performance Assessment (ROE)
|
No. |
Code Govermance |
ROE (%) |
|||||||
|
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
Renge Average Performance ROE (%) |
Rate |
In Score |
Level performance |
||
|
1 |
ADES |
14,770 |
14,163 |
27,403 |
27,342 |
20,919 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
2 |
AISA |
68,449 |
145,483 |
1,071 |
-8,017 |
51,746 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
3 |
ALTO |
-1,939 |
-0,950 |
-2,455 |
-4,623 |
-2,492 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
4 |
BTEK |
-3,913 |
-30,649 |
-6,821 |
-3,222 |
-11,151 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
5 |
BUDI |
4,981 |
6,937 |
6,610 |
4,731 |
5,815 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
6 |
CAMP |
8,206 |
4,580 |
9,672 |
12,880 |
8,834 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
7 |
CEKA |
19,045 |
14,421 |
13,484 |
14,239 |
15,297 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
8 |
CLEO |
17,063 |
14,839 |
18,043 |
11,550 |
15,374 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
9 |
COCO |
7,276 |
2,443 |
3,899 |
3,241 |
4,215 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
10 |
DLTA |
26,189 |
12,106 |
18,610 |
22,989 |
19,973 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
11 |
FOOD |
1,853 |
-27,048 |
-29,161 |
-45,621 |
-24,994 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
12 |
GOOD |
15,757 |
3,730 |
16,193 |
15,567 |
12,812 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
13 |
HOKI |
16,167 |
4,194 |
1,757 |
0,014 |
5,533 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
14 |
ICBP |
20,097 |
13,091 |
11,648 |
7,982 |
13,204 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
15 |
IIKP |
23,799 |
-13,061 |
-15,952 |
-21,252 |
-6,616 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
16 |
INDF |
10,890 |
11,059 |
12,910 |
9,819 |
11,169 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
17 |
KEJU |
29,097 |
12,495 |
111,365 |
121,350 |
68,577 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
18 |
MLBI |
105,213 |
19,929 |
60,563 |
86,163 |
67,967 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
19 |
MYOR |
20,696 |
18,615 |
10,661 |
15,350 |
16,330 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
20 |
PANI |
-3,094 |
0,561 |
4,002 |
3,908 |
1,344 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
21 |
PCAR |
-12,178 |
-25,064 |
2,262 |
8,063 |
-6,729 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
22 |
PSDN |
-14,641 |
-43,532 |
-148,023 |
-66,039 |
-68,059 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
23 |
ROTI |
9,733 |
6,663 |
9,883 |
16,121 |
10,600 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
24 |
SKLT |
11,815 |
10,448 |
15,600 |
12,673 |
12,634 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
25 |
STTP |
22,467 |
23,515 |
18,710 |
15,898 |
20,147 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
26 |
TBLA |
12,326 |
11,560 |
12,198 |
11,730 |
11,953 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
27 |
ULTJ |
18,317 |
23,206 |
24,849 |
62,141 |
32,129 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
28 |
GGRM |
21,364 |
13,068 |
9,454 |
4,805 |
12,173 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
29 |
HMSP |
38,457 |
28,376 |
24,449 |
22,448 |
28,433 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
30 |
ITIC |
-2,630 |
2,187 |
5,657 |
1,040 |
1,564 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
31 |
RMBA |
0,067 |
467,160 |
0,138 |
14,146 |
120,378 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
32 |
WIIM |
2,645 |
14,547 |
7,420 |
16,633 |
10,311 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
33 |
KINO |
19,076 |
4,410 |
3,907 |
-61,956 |
-8,640 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
34 |
MBTO |
-28,467 |
-0,345 |
-33,699 |
-10,481 |
-18,248 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
35 |
TCID |
7,189 |
-0,029 |
-4,204 |
0,976 |
0,983 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
36 |
UNVR |
139,966 |
1,451 |
133,251 |
134,211 |
102,220 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
37 |
CINT |
1,853 |
0,001 |
-28,099 |
-2,214 |
-7,115 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
38 |
KICI |
-3,632 |
0,000 |
19,211 |
0,377 |
3,989 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
39 |
LMPI |
-14,403 |
-0,168 |
-6,299 |
-11,949 |
-8,205 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
40 |
WOOD |
8,074 |
0,104 |
14,696 |
4,710 |
6,896 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
Average |
64,805 |
67,915 |
57,948 |
60,237 |
60,237 |
62,726 |
B |
3 |
|
Source: Processed data, 2023.
Based on the ROE calculation table in the range of
financial performance assessment with the
consumer goods sector scorecard, where on average from 2019 to 2022
consumer goods sector companies get a
percentage of 62.726% by getting a B rate with a score of 3 so that
these are consumer goods ��sector companieshas
a good category work rate.
Customer
Perspective
From
a customer perspective, the company's financial statement data used is cash
receipts from customers. Customer cash receipts are a benchmark indicator of
the success of a product sale obtained by realizing the large amount of income
received from customers. The benchmark for the size of customer cash receipts
is to see if the better the ratio, the greater the cash receipts obtained from
customers. The calculation of customer
perspective refers to research conducted by Setiadi et al., (2022) with perspective benchmarks as follows:
Table 5 Analysis of Calculation Results and Range of Performance
Appraisal Perspectives Customer
|
Analysis of Customer Perspective Calculation
Results |
|||||||||
|
NO. |
Code
govermance |
average |
Range
average Performance
(%) |
Rate |
In
Score |
Level
performance |
|||
|
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
||||||
|
1 |
ADES |
2,33 |
-17,27 |
29,59 |
41,51 |
14,04 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
2 |
AISA |
-8,69 |
-19,86 |
30,51 |
-97,31 |
-23,84 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
3 |
ALTO |
24,03 |
-0,93 |
4,78 |
13,70 |
10,40 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
4 |
BTEK |
-65,86 |
182,28 |
-88,79 |
33,82 |
15,36 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
5 |
BUDI |
23,35 |
-13,46 |
201,96 |
-20,54 |
47,83 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
6 |
CAMP |
10,88 |
-4,18 |
3,67 |
7,76 |
4,53 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
7 |
CEKA |
-16,25 |
17,51 |
46,55 |
11,19 |
14,75 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
8 |
CLEO |
29,93 |
-7,44 |
12,20 |
17,50 |
13,05 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
9 |
COCO |
33,51 |
-0,59 |
10,19 |
23,85 |
16,74 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
10 |
DLTA |
866,82 |
-92,96 |
22,89 |
5,64 |
200,60 |
A |
4 |
TB |
|
11 |
FOOD |
-2,38 |
-21,45 |
-6,49 |
-5,15 |
-8,87 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
12 |
GOOD |
-4,34 |
-3,00 |
3,71 |
19,71 |
4,02 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
13 |
HOKI |
17,39 |
-29,32 |
-24,12 |
14,21 |
-5,46 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
14 |
ICBP |
10,24 |
9,66 |
19,82 |
15,84 |
13,89 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
15 |
IIKP |
0,70 |
-8,69 |
8,88 |
-40,07 |
-9,80 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
16 |
INDF |
4,48 |
6,76 |
20,08 |
12,43 |
10,94 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
17 |
KEJU |
14,09 |
-4,85 |
12,11 |
1,29 |
5,66 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
18 |
MLBI |
-3,71 |
-29,14 |
-0,73 |
24,04 |
-2,39 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
19 |
MYOR |
3,28 |
2,02 |
8,47 |
326,40 |
85,04 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
20 |
PANI |
-37,48 |
-23,55 |
111,13 |
929,21 |
244,83 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
21 |
PCAR |
-61,49 |
8,11 |
183,52 |
41,36 |
42,88 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
22 |
PSDN |
-7,09 |
-28,44 |
1,52 |
-28,98 |
-15,75 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
23 |
ROTI |
22,28 |
2,65 |
-1,47 |
17,44 |
10,23 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
24 |
SKLT |
27,09 |
0,57 |
6,57 |
12,29 |
11,63 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
25 |
STTP |
1,40 |
15,93 |
29,08 |
17,58 |
16,00 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
26 |
TBLA |
3,96 |
9,27 |
61,28 |
8,42 |
20,73 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
27 |
ULTJ |
13,17 |
-2,64 |
9,30 |
17,92 |
9,44 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
28 |
GGRM |
14,70 |
3,11 |
9,55 |
0,49 |
6,96 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
29 |
HMSP |
-0,38 |
-12,07 |
8,37 |
11,34 |
1,81 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
30 |
ITIC |
17,52 |
33,10 |
4,63 |
-71,87 |
-4,15 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
31 |
RMBA |
-7,30 |
-29,30 |
-28,34 |
599,28 |
133,58 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
32 |
WIIM |
-0,66 |
41,16 |
39,07 |
34,71 |
28,57 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
33 |
KINO |
26,07 |
-13,33 |
7,18 |
4,69 |
6,15 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
34 |
MBTO |
-5,58 |
-32,23 |
-43,48 |
49,71 |
-7,90 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
35 |
TCID |
2,49 |
-23,56 |
-8,79 |
668,31 |
159,61 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
36 |
UNVR |
2,58 |
1,03 |
-6,44 |
3,39 |
0,14 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
37 |
CINT |
11,84 |
-16,97 |
-11,87 |
47,77 |
7,69 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
38 |
KICI |
8,56 |
-8,86 |
42,14 |
-29,90 |
2,99 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
39 |
LMPI |
13,65 |
-7,32 |
4,74 |
672,43 |
170,87 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
40 |
WOOD |
-5,84 |
93,77 |
69,23 |
-11,26 |
36,48 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
Average |
73,13 |
48,67 |
68,86 |
132,25 |
80,73 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
Source:
Processed data, 2023
Based
on the table of the results of calculating customer perspectives in consumer
goods sector companies listed in the
table above, consumer goods sector companies in relation to company
performance in terms of customer perspective in 2019 to 2020 decreased with a
percentage in 2019 of 73.13% and in 2020 with an average percentage of 48.67%
with a percentage increase in 2019 to 2020 decreased by 24, 45%. However, in
2020 it experienced a significant average increase of 68.86% and in 2022 it
increased again from the previous year of 132.25%. The increase and decrease in
the company is seen by the receipt of customer cash
received by the company each year. The company has a good level of cash
receipts, it will be accompanied by high interest from customers.
The
results of the company's performance calculation based on the customer's
perspective the average company performance from 2019 to 2022 received an
average percentage of 80.73% with a score
of 3 which is included in the category of good company performance.
Internal
Business Process Perspectives
The
perspective of business and internal processes is the company's ability to
assess new product or service innovations by looking at the needs of each
consumer. The calculation of this internal business process perspective refers
to research conducted by Setiadi et al., (2022) with the
calculation of operating profit, company management of product sales and
business costs that can be maintained in balance with the following formula :
Table 6 Analysis of Calculation
Results and Range of Performance Appraisal Perspectives Internal Business
Processes
|
No. |
Code Govermence |
Operating Profit (IDN) |
Range average Performance (%) |
Rate |
In Score |
Level Performance |
||||
|
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
|||||||
|
1 |
ADES |
19.034,5 |
162,0 |
328,2 |
452,5 |
4.994,3 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
2 |
AISA |
-9.117,1 |
31,0 |
53,9 |
-31,8 |
-226.599,7 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
|
3 |
ALTO |
-558,0 |
-4,8 |
4,8 |
3,9 |
-13.850,6 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
|
4 |
BTEK |
-8.856,5 |
-596,9 |
-105,9 |
-104,2 |
-241.585,7 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
|
5 |
BUDI |
231,8 |
197,2 |
222,7 |
169,3 |
20.526,4 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
6 |
CAMP |
90,9 |
48,8 |
117,4 |
147,2 |
10.107,7 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
7 |
CEKA |
274,6 |
207,5 |
227,2 |
282,2 |
24.789,3 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
8 |
CLEO |
176,4 |
169,0 |
230,3 |
249,2 |
20.624,3 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
9 |
COCO |
23,5 |
16,1 |
24,9 |
22,0 |
2.159,3 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
10 |
DLTA |
412,4 |
343,6 |
240,9 |
294,2 |
32.278,0 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
11 |
FOOD |
3,3 |
-8,8 |
12,8 |
-17,1 |
-244,6 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
|
12 |
GOOD |
672,7 |
451,4 |
632,7 |
674,3 |
60.774,5 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
|
13 |
HOKI |
159,7 |
68,8 |
36,7 |
21,1 |
7.154,4 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
14 |
ICBP |
7.400 |
9.201 |
11.673 |
13.377 |
1.041.309,6 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
|
15 |
IIKP |
-13,1 |
-20,5 |
-17,7 |
-24,2 |
-1.890,8 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
|
16 |
INDF |
9.831,0 |
12.889 |
16.914 |
19.693 |
1.483.201,8 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
|
17 |
KEJU |
136,9 |
154,2 |
183,2 |
150,4 |
15.618,2 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
18 |
MLBI |
1.644,6 |
432,8 |
890,8 |
1.257,4 |
105.639,5 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
|
19 |
MYOR |
3.172,3 |
2.830,9 |
1.772,3 |
2.433,1 |
255.215,6 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
|
20 |
PANI |
1,1 |
2,8 |
4,0 |
275,4 |
7.083,7 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
21 |
PCAR |
-9,4 |
-14,0 |
3,0 |
7,2 |
-329,3 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
|
22 |
PSDN |
33,0 |
-7,0 |
-48,9 |
-14,6 |
-936,2 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
|
23 |
ROTI |
356,9 |
255,3 |
412,6 |
638,3 |
41.577,4 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
24 |
SKLT |
81,3 |
74,7 |
98,3 |
88,2 |
8.562,6 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
25 |
STTP |
607,0 |
773,6 |
765,2 |
756,7 |
72.564,1 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
|
26 |
TBLA |
905,2 |
901,3 |
1.022,9 |
1.020,3 |
96.242,0 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
|
27 |
ULTJ |
1.264,4 |
1.364,3 |
1.628,0 |
1.302,9 |
138.986,7 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
|
28 |
GGRM |
14.790,0 |
9.806,7 |
7.112,7 |
3.770,6 |
887.001,2 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
|
29 |
HMSP |
18.259,4 |
11.161,5 |
9.152,2 |
8.273,1 |
1.171.152,9 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
|
30 |
ITIC |
28,0 |
37,5 |
42,1 |
9,6 |
2.930,2 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
31 |
RMBA |
-1.794,0 |
-2.422,9 |
226,1 |
934,1 |
-76.418,1 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
|
32 |
WIIM |
28,6 |
204,9 |
201,4 |
305,9 |
18.519,4 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
33 |
KINO |
432,6 |
170,9 |
109,1 |
-765,2 |
-1.314,7 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
|
34 |
MBTO |
-67,9 |
-168,2 |
-100,1 |
-26,4 |
-9.064,1 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
|
35 |
TCID |
190,8 |
-68,6 |
-99,5 |
-5,8 |
420,3 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
36 |
UNVR |
10.120,9 |
9.451,0 |
7.679,5 |
7.068,8 |
858.004,4 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
|
37 |
CINT |
20,9 |
10,1 |
-72,7 |
12,0 |
-743,5 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
|
38 |
KICI |
-3,5 |
2,4 |
28,4 |
1,2 |
712,6 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
39 |
LMPI |
-56,4 |
-49,1 |
-10,6 |
-25,3 |
-3.534,8 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
|
40 |
WOOD |
490,3 |
641,9 |
961,0 |
433,1 |
63.156,9 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
|
Average
(%) |
176.630 |
148.101 |
157.509 |
158.859 |
16.027.514 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
|
Source:
Processed data, 2023.
Based
on the table of the results of calculating the perspective of business and
internal processes in consumer goods sector companies listed in the table above, consumer goods sector companies related
to company performance in terms of business and internal process perspectives
in 2019 to 2020 decreased with a percentage in 2019 of 176,630% and in 2020 with an average percentage of 148,101% with a
percentage decrease in 2019 2019 to 2020 decreased by 27,292%. However, in 2020
it experienced a significant average increase of 157,509% and in 2022 it
increased again from the previous year of 158,859%. The increase in this
perspective occurs because the company is good in terms of operating the
company in operating activities.
The
results of the company's performance calculation based on the perspective of
business and internal processes the average company performance from 2019 to
2022 gets an average percentage of 16,027,514% with a score of 2 which is included in the category of good company
performance.
Learning and Growth
Perspectives
This perspective in this perspective assesses how the ability of human
resources in the company to be responsible. This calculation of the perspective
of internal learning and growth refers to research conducted by Listyani et al., (2023) by dividing net profit by the number of workers.
Table 7 Analysis of Calculation Results and Range of
Performance Appraisal Perspectives Learning and Growth
|
No. |
Code Govermance |
Perspectives Learning and Growth |
Range average Performance |
Rate |
In Score |
Level performance |
|||
|
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
||||||
|
1 |
ADES |
14 |
24 |
52 |
81 |
43 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
2 |
AISA |
30 |
48 |
374 |
-1 |
113 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
3 |
ALTO |
-2 |
-3 |
3 |
-13 |
-4 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
4 |
BTEK |
-28 |
-167 |
36 |
-44 |
-51 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
5 |
BUDI |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
6 |
CAMP |
10 |
5 |
13 |
16 |
11 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
7 |
CEKA |
55 |
46 |
46 |
56 |
51 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
8 |
CLEO |
27 |
27 |
39 |
47 |
35 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
9 |
COCO |
3 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
10 |
DLTA |
89 |
37 |
58 |
71 |
64 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
11 |
FOOD |
7 |
-8 |
-7 |
-21 |
-7 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
12 |
GOOD |
4 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
13 |
HOKI |
41 |
14 |
4 |
507 |
142 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
14 |
ICBP |
16 |
18 |
17 |
13 |
16 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
15 |
IIKP |
59 |
-32 |
-36 |
-49 |
-15 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
16 |
INDF |
5 |
7 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
17 |
KEJU |
25 |
31 |
39 |
32 |
32 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
18 |
MLBI |
255 |
62 |
163 |
221 |
175 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
19 |
MYOR |
21 |
22 |
12 |
16 |
18 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
20 |
PANI |
-1 |
219 |
982 |
101 |
325 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
21 |
PCAR |
-22 |
-29 |
1 |
7 |
-11 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
22 |
PSDN |
-9 |
-12 |
-18 |
-8 |
-12 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
23 |
ROTI |
8 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
24 |
SKLT |
2 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
25 |
STTP |
22 |
29 |
26 |
28 |
26 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
26 |
TBLA |
19 |
23 |
28 |
28 |
25 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
27 |
ULTJ |
94 |
100 |
123 |
99 |
104 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
28 |
GGRM |
33 |
24 |
16 |
8 |
20 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
29 |
HMSP |
58 |
38 |
34 |
30 |
40 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
30 |
ITIC |
-3 |
3 |
9 |
1 |
3 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
31 |
RMBA |
148 |
137 |
500 |
100 |
221 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
32 |
WIIM |
771 |
5 |
5 |
7 |
197 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
33 |
KINO |
6 |
1 |
1 |
-25 |
-4 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
34 |
MBTO |
-11 |
-39 |
-43 |
-13 |
-27 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
35 |
TCID |
2 |
-1 |
-2 |
4 |
1 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
36 |
UNVR |
136 |
137 |
116 |
110 |
125 |
A |
4 |
SB |
|
37 |
CINT |
1 |
249 |
-24 |
-2 |
56 |
B |
3 |
B |
|
38 |
KICI |
-483 |
-1 |
3 |
76 |
-101 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
39 |
LMPI |
-4 |
-4 |
-1 |
-2 |
-3 |
D |
1 |
TB |
|
40 |
WOOD |
8 |
15 |
27 |
8 |
15 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
Average |
10 |
37 |
11 |
21 |
20 |
C |
2 |
CB |
|
Source: Processed data, 2023.
Based on the table of the results of the calculation
of the perspective of learning and growth in consumer goods sector companies
listed in the table above, consumer goods sector companies related to company
performance in terms of learning and growth perspectives in 2019 to 2020
increased with a percentage in 2019 of 10% and in 2020 with an average
percentage of 37% But in 2021 it decreased again with a significant average by
11% and in 2022 continues to experience quite good progress with an increase of
21%. The increase in this perspective, seen by the management of the company's
net profit with the level of the number of employees in the company that is
effectively produced by the company, with a small or large number in accordance
with the company's needs, the company can optimally manage the company well.
The results of the company's performance calculation based on the perspective
of learning and the average growth of the company's performance from 2019 to
2022 get an average percentage of 20% with a score of 2 which is included in
the category of company performance that is quite good.
CONCLUSSION
This study
empirically examines the relationship between balanced scorecard and company
performance (study on consumer goods industry companies listed on the Indonesia
Stock Exchange in 2019-2022). Based on data analysis and discussion, the
following conclusions can be drawn financial perspective variables with
measurements using ROA, the results show an average performance of 56.192%;
rate B with a good level of performance while with measurements using the ROE
ratio the results show an average performance of 62.726%; B rate with good
performance level. So that the overall scorecard assessment is categorized as
good company performance in terms of financial perspective. Customer
perspective variable with an average performance result of 80.73%; B
performance rate with good performance level. The results of the company's
performance calculation based on the perspective of business processes and
internal company performance get an average percentage of 16,027% with a score
of 2 which is included in the category of company performance that is quite
good. Learning and growth perspective variables, assessed based on net profit
and number of company workers. The assessment of growth and learning
perspectives as a whole is considered quite good because of the value with an
average performance result of 20%; C performance rate with performance level is
quite good. Overall, the results of this study show that the company's
performance seen from various perspectives of the balanced scorecard gets the
company's performance value in the fairly good category with an average value
of 47.12% with a performance rate of C.
For further
research it is necessary to expand the number of companies and types of
companies, adding years of observation so as to add significance to the results
of the study. Furthermore, it is expected to make more detailed observations
related to research variable data. The relationship between balanced scorecards
and company performance is expanded using statistical analysis.
REFERENSI
Ahmed,
S., & Rahman, M. H. (2015). The Effects Of Marketing Mix On Consumer
Satisfaction: A Literature Review From Islamic Perspectives. Turkish Journal Of
Islamic Economics, 2(1), 17�30.
Albuhisi,
A. M., & Abdallah, A. B. (2018). The Impact Of Soft Tqm On Financial
Performance: The Mediating Roles Of Non-Financial Balanced Scorecard
Perspectives. International Journal Of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(7),
1360�1379.
Alipok,
A., Yusuf, N., & Husain, S. P. (2021). Analisis Penilaian Kinerja
Menggunakan Balance Score Card. Jambura Accounting Review, 2(2), 110�122.
Atidhira,
A. T., & Yustina, A. I. (2017). The Influence Of Return On Asset, Debt To
Equity Ratio, Earnings Per Share, And Company Size On Share Return In Property
And Real Estate Companies. Jaaf (Journal Of Applied Accounting And Finance), 1(2),
128�146.
Diana
Riyana, H. (2017). Pengukuran Kinerja Perusahaan Pt Indofood Dengan Menggunakan
Balanced Scorecard. Jurnal Sekuritas (Saham, Ekonomi, Keuangan Dan Investasi), 1(2),
42�53.
Gusti,
G. N. N., Kawanisi, K., Al Sawaf, M. B., Khadami, F., & Xiao, C. (2023).
Investigating Tidal River Dynamics In A Longitudinally Varying Channel
Geometry. Continental Shelf Research, 253, 104901.
Haykal,
A. P., Febrilia, I., & Monoarfa, T. A. (2023). Pengaruh Kualitas Sistem,
Kualitas Informasi, Dan Kualitas Layanan Terhadap Loyalitas Konsumen Yang
Dimediasi Oleh Kepuasan Konsumen Dalam Berbelanja Online. Jurnal Bisnis,
Manajemen, Dan Keuangan, 4(1), 17�35.
Listyani,
T. T., Nisak, N. M. C., & Prihatiningsih, P. (2023). Kinerja Keuangan
Berdasarkan Proses Bisnis Internal Perusahaan Dengan Metode Balanced Scorecard
Pada Perusahaan Berbagai Sektor Dengan Kapitalisasi Tertinggi Di Bursa Efek
Indonesia Tahun 2020-2021. Keunis, 11(1), 27�41.
Nardi,
P. M. (2018). Doing Survey Research: A Guide To Quantitative Methods.
Routledge.
Norreklit,
H. (2000). The Balance On The Balanced Scorecard A Critical Analysis Of Some Of
Its Assumptions. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 65�88.
Setiadi,
Y. W., Sumarlan, A., & Fitri, M. A. (2022). Pelatihan Kewirausahaan Untuk
Para Remaja Di Desa Tanah Abang Guna Menerapkan Gnrm Dan Meningkatkan Kemampuan
Jiwa Wirausaha. Capacitarea: Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat, 2(02), 52�57.
Storey,
J. (2014). New Perspectives On Human Resource Management (Routledge Revivals).
Routledge.
Sumarlan,
A., & Setiadi, Y. W. (2022). Pengukuran Kinerja Perusahaan Berdasarkan
Balance Scorecard Pada Pt Asuransi Multi Artha Guna Tbk Yang Terdaftar Di Bursa
Efek Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi, Manajemen Dan Ekonomi Islam (Jam-Ekis),
5(1), 104�122.
Tanaka,
M., Bloom, N., David, J. M., & Koga, M. (2020). Firm Performance And Macro
Forecast Accuracy. Journal Of Monetary Economics, 114, 26�41.
Vosloban,
R. I. (2012). The Influence Of The Employee�s Performance On The Company�s
Growth-A Managerial Perspective. Procedia Economics And Finance, 3, 660�665.
Copyright holders:
Shalli Afdallash,
Rina Trisnawati (2023)
First publication
right:
AJEMB � American
Journal of Economic and Management Business