JRSSEM 2022, Vol. 02, No. 4, 382 – 390
E-ISSN: 2807 - 6311, P-ISSN: 2807 - 6494
DOI: 10.36418/jrssem.v2i03.290 https://jrssem.publikasiindonesia.id/index.php/jrssem
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF GREEN DETERGENT AS A
WATER-FRIENDLY SOLUTION IN INDONESIA
Dian Masita Dewi
1
Agni Danaryanti
2
1
Faculty of Economics and Business, Lambung Mangkurat University, Indonesia
2
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Lambung Mangkurat University, Indonesia
*
e-mail: dianmasitadewi@ulm.ac.id, agnidanaryanti@ulm.ac.id
*Correspondence: dianmasitadewi@ulm.ac.id
Submitted
: 10
th
October 2022
Revised
: 18
th
October 2022
Accepted
: 30
th
October 2022
Abstract: The most crucial global issue discussed at the Fourth Intergovernmental Review Meeting
on the Implementation of the Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine
Environment from Bali Land Based Activities (IGR-4) in 2018 is the danger of detergent. Up to 45%
of Indonesia’s rivers are in the category of being heavily polluted by detergent. Furthermore,
Enzymatic Eco Detergent is a new, renewable, and innovative biodegradable product made from
vegetable surfactants based on palm oil (MES). It is also enriched with organic enzymes produced
by simple biotechnology from processing organic waste, such as fruits and vegetable peels, based
on garbage enzyme/eco-enzyme. And it also has excellent potential to be developed on a micro
business scale (Start-up). As a new product, conducting a business feasibility analysis is necessary
to reduce the risk of failure or loss. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the feasibility of the Eco
Detergent factory start-up business with a capacity of 12,000 liters per year based on a financial
analysis involving the Payback Period, Net Present Value, Internal Rate of Return, and Return on
Investment. The data obtained were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2013 software. The result
showed that the payback period (PP) is three years (2 years and 3 months) faster than the project
age of 5 years, hence the Green detergent start-up project, "Enzymatic Eco Detergent," is feasible
to be implemented. Meanwhile, the Net Present Value (NPV) criteria have a positive IDR of
1,117,448,350.97. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and the Return on Investment (ROI) obtained
are 57.57% and 54%, respectively. Conclusively, the investment is considered profitable with a
return rate of 10.37%, hence, it is feasible to be implemented.
Keywords: Eco Liquid Detergent; Eco Enzyme; Organic Enzyme; Business Feasibility Analysis, and
Financial Analysis
Dian Masita Dewi
1
Agni Danaryanti
2
| 383
INTRODUCTION
Detergent is a cleaning agent
commonly used by industrial and
household businesses
1)
. IDN Times released
a news report stating that each household's
average daily use of detergents is 50
grams
2)
. Detergents containing the active
ingredient of LAS (Linear Alkylbenzene
Sulfonate), a surfactant derived from
petroleum, are commonly used and widely
available in the market. However, its low
biodegradability is not proportional to the
clean power and has not been optimized as
an active ingredient. This synthetic
ingredient also has a negative effect on
human skin because it is toxic and causes
skin irritation
3,4,5)
.
Methyl Ester Sulfonate (MES) is a
chemical compound surfactant used in the
production of detergent made from natural
ingredients. The emulsion is oil soluble
hence it is an appropriate detergent base.
Moreover, its vegetable content is a more
environmentally friendly alternative related
to the rest of the washing products
6)
The advantage of MES compared to
LAS with the same concentration is its
higher detergency power. In addition to the
cleaning products that use enzymes, MES
can maintain enzyme activities better than
LAS
7).
Therefore, it is suitable as an
alternative material for environmentally
friendly detergents
8).
Eco enzyme is a multipurpose liquid
that is produced from the fermentation of
organic waste
9,10
. Eco enzyme was first
developed by Dr. Rosukon Poompanvong, a
founder of the Thai Organic Farming
Association who has been researching
since the 1980s
9,10,11)
. Eco enzyme is made
through a fermentation process for 3
months with a ratio of organic matter,
brown sugar, and water composition of 3:
1:10
10,11)
. Eco Enzyme contains secondary
metabolic compounds, such as alkaloids,
flavonoids, saponins, tannins, steroids, and
triterpenoids
12)
. These compounds have
physiological and antimicrobial functions
with therapeutic potential but cause skin
infections
10,12)
. It also contains protease,
lipase, and amylase enzymes
12,13,14)
. These
three enzymes strengthen the detergent’s
function as a dirt remover, one of which is
blood stains on fabrics. Protease, amylase,
and lipase enzymes react to dissolve
protein, starch, and oil stains,
respectively
15,16)
.
One of the most crucial issues
discussed at The Fourth Intergovernmental
Review Meeting on the Implementation of
the Global Program of Action for the
Protection of the Marine Environment from
Bali Land Based Activities (IGR-4) in 2018 is
the danger of detergent. Detergents cause
river pollution that occurs in almost all
parts of Indonesia. The main solution is an
innovation called soft detergent
17)
.
Therefore, the National Standardization
Agency in 2021 stipulates SNI 4075-
1:2017/Amd.1:2020 concerning liquid
detergents for clothing where the change
aims to adjust standards and technological
developments. It specifically focuses on the
test methods and quality requirements,
adjustment of standards to new regulations
that apply, protecting consumer health,
ensure environmental sustainability
18)
.
Enzymatic Eco Detergent, an
innovative product not previously available
in Indonesia, was developed in response to
the above problems. It is an innovative
384 | Financial Analysis of Green Detergent as A Water-Friendly Solution In Indonesia
detergent made from plant-based
surfactants (MES) enriched with Organic
Enzymes from processing fruit and
vegetable peel waste using eco enzyme
based biotechnology methods.
Furthermore, the SNI Test from the
Banjarbaru BSPJI in 2022 showed that the
product met the quality requirements
based on SNI 4075-1:2017/Amd.1:2020
concerning liquid detergent for clothing
19)
.
Utilizing waste into valuable products will
reduce negative environmental
impact
20,21,22,23,24,25)
and the consumers
demand for environmental friendly
products has also gone up
26,27)
. Therefore,
it has a great opportunity to be developed
on an industrial scale.
In order to avoid poor decision-making
and reduce the risk of failure, a new
business needs a good feasibility analysis.
Furthermore, one of the key factors to
consider before starting a business is
finance, also known as capital. The process
of capital planning must be implemented
from the outset of a business plan. The
minimum considerations include the
estimated value of the project, cash flow
projections and profitability, other business
investments, and financial viability
28,29,30)
.
This study uses the financial
accounting method for the feasibility
analysis of the new industry with this bio-
enzymatic detergent product
28)
.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Financial Accounting method was
used to analyze the feasibility of a Green
Detergent Start-up, "Enzymatic Eco
Detergent". This method involves several
eligibility criteria
28,29,30)
, including:
1. Payback Period (PP)
PP measures the return rate of an
investment. Therefore, months and years,
rather than percentages, serve as the
measurement unit. This model measures
the return rate of investment and thus relies
on cash inflows as its foundation.
The payback period formula with a
different cash flow per year
28,29,30)
.




(1)
The payback period formula with the
same cash flows per year
28,29,30)




(2)
The formula in excel =
(3)
Criteria:
The project is feasible when the payback
period/time is faster.
It is not feasible when the payback
period/time is longer.
In a case where more than one
investment project is proposed, the
faster payback period is chosen
28,29,30,31).
2. Net Present Value (NPV)
NPV is calculated by comparing the
investment PV with the cash outflows over
time. Determining the interest rate for the
present value calculation is essential. The
interest rate used in this study is 10,37 %
and was taken from the Credit for Small and
Micro Enterprises
32)
Furthermore, the social
opportunity cost of capital is used as a
factoring discount to arrive at the NPV,
Dian Masita Dewi
1
Agni Danaryanti
2
| 385
which is the net benefit.
Data on the estimated investment,
operating, and maintenance costs, as well
as the estimated benefits of the planned
project, are also needed
28,29,30,31)
.


󰇛󰇜

 (4)
Formulas in Excel =
(5)
The criteria for accepting or rejecting
an investment plan using the NPV method
are as follows:
1) NPV > 0 (Positive): the investment made
provides benefits for the company,
hence, the project can be continued.
2) NPV < 0 (negative): the investment
made will result in losses for the
company, hence, the project cannot be
continued.
3) NPV = 0: the investment made does not
result in the company making a profit or
loss. The company’s finances are not
affected when the project is
implemented. Decisions must be made
using other criteria, such as the impact
of investment on the company's
positioning
33)
a. IRR (Internal Rate of Return)
IRR is an indicator of the efficiency level
of investment. A project can be carried out
when the return rate exceeds other
investments, such as interest on bank
deposits, mutual funds, and others.
Projects with high IRR values are
prioritized. However, it is insufficient to
evaluate a project solely on the basis of IRR.
Generally, the return rate must exceed the
opportunity cost of using the funds.
Therefore, a project will be implemented by
considering the IRR and discount rate (i).
The discount rate, also known as the
external rate of return, is the cost of
borrowing capital that must be considered
with the return on investment rate
28,29,30,31).

󰇛

󰇜

󰇛

󰇜

󰇛

󰇜

󰇛

󰇜

󰇛

󰇜
(6)
Formulas in Excel = (7)
The project is accepted when IRR > i
(loan interest) and rejected when IRR < i
(loan interest)
b. Return On Investment (ROI)
Return On Investment (ROI) measures
the company’s overall ability to generate
profits with the total assets available. This
measurement is affected by several factors
as follows:
1) Turnover operating assets: This is the
rate of turnover used for operations,
which is the speed at which operating
assets rotate in a certain period.
2) Profit Margin: It is also known as
operating profit expressed in
percentage and total net sales. It
measures the profit level that can be
achieved by the company associated
with sales.
The size of ROI is influenced either by
profit margin, asset turnover, or both.
Therefore, they can be used by company
leaders to increase ROI. Increasing profit
margins requires more effective
production, sales, and administration
efficiency. Meanwhile, increasing turnover
is the policy of investing funds in current
386 | Financial Analysis of Green Detergent as A Water-Friendly Solution In Indonesia
and fixed assets
28,29,30,31)
. The ROI value is
calculated as follows:



 (8)
The formula in Excel= NPV/Acc Cost Of
Investment at 5th year.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
a. Data Collection on Needs Equipment,
Machinery, and Production Costs
1. Procurement Cost
Procurement Cost is the sum of all
equipment purchased to support business
activities, and it is incurred in the first
year
28,34)
. The types of equipment and
machines used are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Procurement Cost
No
Types of Cost
Total
(IDR)
1
Stainless steel
Heating Machine
for liquid detergent
250,000,000
2
Liquid detergent
mixer and cooler
150,000,000
3
Continuous Sealer
50,000,000
4
Electric Scale
10,000,000
Total Procurement
Cost
460,000,000
2. Start-Up Cost
The start-Up cost is incurred to support
operational needs. This cost is usually
incurred in the first years because
production activities, business licenses,
permits from the National Agency of Drug
and Food Control, and distribution permits
are very important
28,34)
.
Table 2. Start-Up Cost
No
Types of Cost
Total
(IDR)
1
Business License
Management
5,000,000
2
Management of
National Agency of
Drug and Food
Control/ Indonesian
National Standard
Permits
15,000,000
3
Marketing Permit
Management
20,000,000
Total Start-Up Cost
40,000,000
3. On-Going Cost
On-Going cost is incurred when
production has been carried out. It consists
of the maintenance and replacement of
components or spare parts
28,34)
Table 3. On Going Cost
No
1
st
year
(IDR)
2
nd
year
(IDR)
1
0
2,000,000
2
0
3,000,000
0
5,000,000
4. Production Cost
The monthly micro-scale production
capacity is planned to be 1000 liters. To
make 1000 liters of Eco Enzymatic
Detergent, approximately 100 kg of
Vegetable Surfactant and 200 Liters of
organic enzymes are needed. It is necessary
to include other components, such as labor,
electricity, additional materials, packaging,
and administration, in order to calculate
production costs
28,34
).
Dian Masita Dewi
1
Agni Danaryanti
2
| 387
Table 4. Production Cost Details
N
o
Product
ion
Compo
nents
Nee
ds
Cost
(IDR)
Total
(IDR)
1
Vegetab
le
Surfacta
nt
(MES)
100
kg
100.000/k
g
10,000
,000
2
Organic
Enzyme
s
200
liter
20.000/ltr
4,000,
000
3
Labor
3
peo
ple
1.500.000
/person/
month
4,000,
000
4
Local
Water
Compa
ny
-
1.000.000
/month
1,000,
000
5
Electrici
ty
-
1.000.000
/ month
1,000,
000
6
Additio
nal
Compo
nents
5 kg
100.000/k
g
500.00
0
7
Liquid
Deterge
nt
Packagi
ng
1.00
0
pcs
10.000/pc
s
10,000
,000
8
Box
packing
100
pcs
10.000/pc
s
1,000,
000
Total Production Cost
32.000
.000
5. Product Selling Price
Based on the planned production
capacity of 1000 liters per month, Eco
detergent Enzymatic will be packaged per
1000 ml, hence the number of products to
be marketed is 1,000 pcs/month. The
desired level of profit is required to
determine the selling price
28,34)
. In this
study, the desired profit level is 40%. The
selling price per pcs can be determined as
follows.





󰇛
󰇜
(9)



󰇛 󰇜




󰇛

󰇜

 
Based on the product selling price
calculation, the product will be sold at a
price of IDR 44,800 per pcs with a net of
1000 ml.
b. Investment Feasibility Analysis
A feasibility analysis is carried out using
the Payback Period, Net Present Value, and
ROI methods. A summary of the calculation
of costs is shown in the table below:
Table 5: Data Collection and Processing
Results
1
Cost Of Investment
(Credit for Small and
Micro Enterprises)
10,37%
2
Revenue (1year =
44.800x1000X 12)
IDR
537.600.000
3
Growth
25%
4
Inflasi
4%
5
Initial Investment
IDR.
505.000.000
6
Usia Proyek
5 Years
388 | Financial Analysis of Green Detergent as A Water-Friendly Solution In Indonesia
Tabel 6: Production Components in 1 Year
Production
Components
1 Month
(IDR)
1 Year
(IDR)
Methyl Ester
Sulfonat (MES)
10,000,000
120,000,
000
Organic Enzymes
4,000,000
48,000,0
00
Labor
4,500,000
54,000,0
00
Regional Water
Supply Company
1,000,000
12,000,0
00
Electricity
1,000,000
12,000,0
00
Additional
Ingredients
500,000
6,000,00
0
Liquid Detergent
Packaging
10,000,000
120,000,
000
Box packing/ 10
pcs
1,000,000
12,000,0
00
OPEX
32,000,000
384,000,
000
Table 7: EBITDA To Determine Net Cash
Flow
Tabel 8: Net Cash Flow
Table 9: PV Cost of Investment
c. Investment Feasibility Criteria Green
Detergent, “Enzymatic Eco Detergent”
The investment feasibility analysis is
carried out in the production of Green
detergent, based on the data processing.
This is shown in Table 10:
Table 10: Investment Feasibility according
to the Criteria
Invest
ment
Criteria
Feasibi
lity
Indicat
or
Result
Feasibi
lity
Result
IRR
>
10.37
%
57.57%
Feas
ible
NPV
> 0
(Positif
)
IDR
1,117,448,3
50.97
Feas
ible
Paybac
k
Period
< 5
Years
3 Years
Feas
ible
ROI
>
10.37
%
54%
Feas
ible
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the financial analysis of four
investment assessments for start-up green
detergents, the project’s implementation is
feasible. Furthermore, all investment
feasibility criteria meet the eligibility
requirements where the IRR value is
Tahun 0 Tahun 1 Tahun 2 Tahun 3 Tahun 4 Tahun 5
Revenue 537.600.000Rp 672.000.000Rp 840.000.000Rp 1.050.000.000Rp 1.312.500.000Rp
OPEX 384.000.000Rp 399.360.000Rp 415.334.400Rp 431.947.776Rp 449.225.687Rp
EBITDA 153.600.000Rp 272.640.000Rp 424.665.600Rp 618.052.224Rp 863.274.313Rp
EBITDA margin 29% 41% 51% 59% 66%
Tahun 0 Tahun 1 Tahun 2 Tahun 3 Tahun 4 Tahun 5
Initial investment 505.000.000-Rp
EBITDA 153.600.000Rp 272.640.000Rp 424.665.600Rp 618.052.224Rp 863.274.313Rp
Net Cash Flow 505.000.000-Rp 153.600.000Rp 272.640.000Rp 424.665.600Rp 618.052.224Rp 863.274.313Rp
Accumulated Cash Flow
505.000.000-Rp 351.400.000-Rp 78.760.000-Rp 345.905.600Rp 963.957.824Rp 1.827.232.137Rp
Cost Of Investment
Usia Proyek Tahun 0 Tahun 1 Tahun 2 Tahun 3 Tahun 4 Tahun 5
Initial Investnent 505.000.000Rp
OPEX 384.000.000Rp 399.360.000Rp 415.334.400Rp 431.947.776Rp 449.225.687Rp
Cost Of Investment 505.000.000Rp 384.000.001Rp 399.360.002Rp 415.334.403Rp 431.947.780Rp 449.225.692Rp
PV Cost Of Investment 505.000.000Rp 347.920.632Rp 327.840.407Rp 308.919.112Rp 291.089.859Rp 274.289.621Rp
Acc Cost Of Investment 505.000.000Rp 852.920.632Rp 1.180.761.039Rp 1.489.680.151Rp 1.780.770.011Rp 2.055.059.631Rp
Dian Masita Dewi
1
Agni Danaryanti
2
| 389
57.57%. The average loan interest rate of a
micro business is 10.37%. The NPV shows a
positive IDR of 1,117,448,350.97, and the
investment payback period is less than the
project's age, which is three years. It is also
faster, and the Return on Investment value
is 54%. The investment is profitable with a
return rate of 10.37%, hence, its
implementation is feasible.
REFERENCES
1. Connell, D. W. dan GJ Miller,”Kimia
dan Ekotoksikologi Pencemaran.”
Jakarta : UI Press, 1995.
2. Anitya, Dita,” Pakai Detergen Tiap
Hari? Simak 4 Fakta Bahayanya Bagi
Lingkungan,” IND Times.
https://www.idntimes.com/science/discov
ery/dita-anitya/fakta-bahaya-detergen-
lingkungan-c1c2 (accessed May 20, 2022).
3. M. Bressan, M.G. Marin, R.
Brunetti,”Effect of linear alkylbenzene
sulphonate (LAS) on skeletal
development of sea urchin embryos
(Paracentrotus lividus Lmk),” Water
Res. 25(5), 613-616 (1991).
4. Lewis, M.A,”Chronic and sublethal
toxicities of surfactants to aquatic
animals: a review and risk assessment,”
Water Res. 25(1):101-113 (1991)
5. Budiawan, Fatisa, Y., Khairani
N ,”Optimasi Biodegradabilitas dan Uji
Toksisitas Hasil Degradasi Surfaktan
Linear Alkilbenzena Sulfonat (LAS)
sebagai Bahan Deterjen Pembersih,”
Makara Sains, 13 (2), 125-133 (2009)
6. Lubis, E. H., Hendra, W., & Lestari,
N ,” Mempelajari ekstraksi dan
stabilitas total karotenoid, α dan β
cryptoxanthin dalam ekstrak buah
merah (Pandanus conoideus, Lamk),”
Jurnal Riset Teknologi Industri, 6 (12),
11–19. (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.26578/jrti.v6i12.1
517
7. Watkins, C., “All Eyes are on Texas”.
Inform 12 : 1152-1159. (2001)
8. Sampepana, I., Paluphy E.Y., Aditya R.
and Amiroh ,”Perbandingan
Karakteristik Metil Ester Sulfonat dan
Sodium Lauril Sulfonat Sebagai Bahan
Emulsifier,” Jurnal Ristek Teknologi
Industri 1(2), 167-176 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.26578/jrti.v9i2.1715
9. Adelliya Novianti, and I Nengah
Muliarta.. “Eco-Enzym Based on
Household Organic Waste As Multi-
Purpose Liquid”. Agriwar Journal 1
(1), 12-17 (2021).
https://www.ejournal.warmadewa.ac.i
d/index.php/agriwar/article/view/3655
10. Dewi, Dian Masita,” Pelatihan
Pembuatan Eco-Enzyme Bersama
Komunitas Eco-Enzyme Lambung
Mangkurat Kalimantan Selatan,”
ILUNG,. 1(1) 67-76 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.20527/ilung.v1i1.35
60
11. Hanifah, Primarista, Prasetyawan,
Safitri, Adyati, Srihadyastutie,” The
Effect of Variations in Sugar Types and
Fermentation Time on Enzyme
Activity and Total Titrated Acid on
Eco-Enzyme Results of Fermentation,”
7th International Conference on
Biological Science (ICBS 2021)
Atlantis Press International (2021).
https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/absr.k.2204
06.084
12. L. Vama and M. N. Cherekar,
Production, Extraction and Uses Of
Eco-Enzyme Using Citrus Fruit Waste:
Wealth From Weste. Asian J. Of
Microbiol. Biotech. Env. Sc. 22(2) 346-
351 (2020).
http://www.envirobiotechjournals.com
/AJMBES/v22i220/AJM-18.pdf
13. Neupane, K., & Khadka, R. Production
of Garbage Enzyme from Different
Fruit and Vegetable Wastes and
Evaluation of its Enzymatic and
Antimicrobial Efficacy. Tribhuvan
University Journal of Microbiology,
6(1), 113–118 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.3126/tujm.v6i0.2659
4
14. Galintin, O., Rasit, N., & Hamzah, S ,”
Production and characterization of eco
enzyme produced from fruit and
vegetable wastes and its influence on
the aquaculture sludge,” Biointerface
Research in Applied Chemistry 11(3)
10205–10214 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.33263/BRIAC113.1
020510214
15. C. Arun and P. Sivashanmugam,
“Solubilisation Of Waste Activated
Sludge Using Garbage Enzyme
Produced From Different Pre-
Consumer Organic Waste,” RSC
390 | Financial Analysis of Green Detergent as A Water-Friendly Solution In Indonesia
advances 5(63) 51421-51427 (2015).
16. C. Arun and P. Sivashanmugam,
“Study on optimization of process
parameters for enhancing the multi-
hydrolytic enzyme activity in garbage
enzyme produced from preconsumer
organic waste,” Bioresour. Technol 226
200–210 (2017). doi:
10.1016/j.biortech.2016.12.029
17. United Nations Environment
Program ,”Fourth Intergovernmental
Meeting of the Global Programme of
Action.” (2018)
https://www.unep.org/cep/events/work
ing-group-meeting/fourth-
intergovernmental-meeting-global-
programme-action (acssessed July 3,
2022)
18. Badan Standardisasi Nasional ,”SNI
4075-1:2017 Detergen Cuci Cair
bagian 1 Pakaian,” (2017)
19. BSPJI. Balai Standarisasi dan
Pelayanan Jasa Industri Banjarbaru
(2022).
https://bspjibanjarbaru.kemenperin.go.
id/pengujian/ (acssessed August 4,
2022)
20. E. Kusrini, D. Supramono, M.I.
Alhamid, S. Pranata, L.D. Wilson, and
A. Usman, “Effect of polypropylene
plastic waste as co-feeding for
production of pyrolysis oil from palm
empty fruit bunches,” Evergreen, 6 (1)
92–97 (2019).
https://doi:10.5109/2328410
21. A. Gautam, T.M. Mata, A.A. Martins,
and N.S. Caetano, “Evaluation of areca
palm renewable options to replace
disposable plastic containers using life
cycle assessment methodology,”
Energy Reports, 6 80–86 (2020).
https://doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2019.08.023.
22. K. Changwichan, and S.H. Gheewala,
“Choice of materials for takeaway
beverage cups towards a circular
economy,” Sustainable Production and
Consumption, 22 34–44 (2020).
https://doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.02.004
23. C.F. Jung, D.A. de Jesus Pacheco, F.
Sporket, C.A. do Nascimento, and C.S.
ten Caten, “Design from waste: a novel
eco-efficient pyramidal microwave
absorber using rice husks and medium
density fibreboard residues,” Waste
Management, 119 91–100 (2021).
https://doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2020.08.
047
24. S. Hartini, F.Yuanda, Y. Widharto, and
H. Muhammad, “Optimal Treatment
Combination for Dishwashing Liquid
Soap based on Waste Cooking Oil
According to The Requirement of
Indonesian Quality Standards,”
Evergreen, 8 (2) 492–498 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.5109/4480734
25. A.Berisha and L Osmanaj,” Kosovo
Scenario for Mitigation of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions from Municipal Waste
Management,” Evergreen, 8 (3), 509-
516 (2021)
https://doi.org/10.5109/4491636
26. B. Shahriari, A. Hassanpoor, A.
Navehebrahim, and S. Jafarinia, “A
systematic review of green human
resource management,” Evergreen, 6
(2) 177–189 (2019).
doi:10.5109/2328408.
27. N.Bhasin, R.R.Kar, and N.Arora ,
“Green Disclosure Practices In India: A
Study of Select Companies,”
Evergreen, 2 (2) 5-13 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.5109/1544075
28. Dewi, D. M., & Wahdi, A,” Bisnis dan
Perencanaan Bisnis Baru,”
Deepublish, 2020.
https://books.google.co.id/books?id=x
XzSDwAAQBAJ&p
29. Nurmalina R, Sarianti T, Karyadi A,”
Studi Kelayakan Bisnis,” Bogor : IPB
Press, 2017
30. Kasmir dan Jakfar ,”Studi Kelayakan
Bisnis,” Jakarta. Penerbit Kencana,
2003
31. Karl, T, Ulrich,” Product Design and
Development,” Mc. Graw Hill
Companies, 2012.
32. OJK ,”Suku Bunga Dasar
Kredit,”[Online]. 2022
https://www.ojk.go.id/id/kanal/perban
kan/Pages/Suku-Bunga-Dasar.aspx.
(acssessed August 8, 2022)
33. Marimin,” Teknik dan Aplikasi
Pengambilan Keputusan Kriteria
Majemuk.” Jakarta : Grasindo, 2003.
34. Nasution, Hakim, Anwar. Manajemen
Industri. Yogyakarta : Andi Offset,
2006
© 2021 by the authors. Submitted
for possible open access publication
under the terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY SA) license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).