259 
 

 

  

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: shalliafdallash@gmail.com, rina.trisnawati@ums.ac.id  

 

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 

 

mailto:shalliafdallash@gmail.com
mailto:rina.trisnawati@ums.ac.id
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


American Journal of Economic and Management Business 

Vol. 2 No. 7 July 2023 

260 
 

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 

http://www.idx.co.id/


Shalli Afdallash, Rina Trisnawati 

261 
 

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: 

𝑹𝑶𝑨 =
𝑵𝒆𝒕 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒇𝒊𝒕

𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑨𝒌𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒂
𝒙𝟏𝟎𝟎%..............................................(1) 

𝑹𝑶𝑬 =
𝑵𝒆𝒕 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒇𝒊𝒕

𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑬𝒌𝒖𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒔
𝒙𝟏𝟎𝟎%..............................................(2) 

 

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 



American Journal of Economic and Management Business 

Vol. 2 No. 7 July 2023 

262 
 

No. 
Code 

govermence  

ROA (%) 

2019 2020 2021 2022 

Average 

Performance 

Range ROA 

(%) 

Rate 
In 

Score 

Level 

peformance 

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. 



Shalli Afdallash, Rina Trisnawati 

263 
 

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 

Govermanc

e 

ROE (%) 

2019 2020 2021 2022 

Renge 

Average 

Performanc

e ROE (%) 

Rate 

In 

Scor

e 

Level 

performanc

e 

1 ADES 14,770 14,163 27,403 27,342 20,919 C 2 CB 

2 AISA 68,449 
145,48

3 
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 
121,35

0 68,577 B 3 B 

18 MLBI 
105,21

3 
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 



American Journal of Economic and Management Business 

Vol. 2 No. 7 July 2023 

264 
 

No

. 

Code 

Govermanc

e 

ROE (%) 

2019 2020 2021 2022 

Renge 

Average 

Performanc

e ROE (%) 

Rate 

In 

Scor

e 

Level 

performanc

e 

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 
467,16

0 
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 
139,96

6 
1,451 133,251 

134,21

1 102,220 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 62,72

6 
B 3 

Source: Processed data, 2023. 

Based on the table of financial perspective calculation results using Return on 

Equity (ROE) in consumer goods sector companies listed in the table above, consumer 

goods sector companies   related to financial performance in 2019 to 2020 increased with 

a percentage in 2019 of 64.805% and in 2020 with an average percentage of 67.915% 

with an increase in percentage from 2019 to 2020 up by 3.11%. However, in the following 

year, it experienced a fluctuating decline from 2020 to 2021 with an average percentage 

of financial performance in 2021 of 57.948%. Consumer goods sector companies can 

bounce back in 2022 with a percentage of 60.237%, so that from 2021 to 2022 it has 

increased by 2.289%. The increase in this case is valued at the company in creating good 

profits and total equity. 

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. 

 



Shalli Afdallash, Rina Trisnawati 

265 
 

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: 

𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑝𝑡𝑠 =  
year Acivment n − year acivment n − 1

𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝐴𝑐𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑛𝑡 𝑛 − 1
× 10 

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 



American Journal of Economic and Management Business 

Vol. 2 No. 7 July 2023 

266 
 

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 



Shalli Afdallash, Rina Trisnawati 

267 
 

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 :  

𝑶𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒇𝒊𝒕 = (𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐨 − 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞) 𝒙𝟏𝟎𝟎% 

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 



American Journal of Economic and Management Business 

Vol. 2 No. 7 July 2023 

268 
 

No. 
Code 

Govermence 

Operating Profit (IDN) Range 

average 

Performance 

(%) 

Rate 
In 

Score 

Level 

Performance 2019 2020 2021 2022 

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.  

𝑳𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑮𝒓𝒐𝒘𝒕𝒉 𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 =
𝑵𝒆𝒕 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒇𝒊𝒓

𝑬𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒐𝒚𝒆𝒅 𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍
× 𝟏𝟎𝟎 



Shalli Afdallash, Rina Trisnawati 

269 
 

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 



American Journal of Economic and Management Business 

Vol. 2 No. 7 July 2023 

270 
 

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 



Shalli Afdallash, Rina Trisnawati 

271 
 

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