DETERMINANTS OF STICKY COST BEHAVIOUR IN ORGANIZATIONS WORLDWIDE: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35631/AIJBES.829072Keywords:
Cost Asymmetry, Cost Stickiness, Managerial Expectations, Monitoring Structure, Sticky Cost Behaviour, Systematic Literature ReviewAbstract
Sticky cost behaviour describes the asymmetric response of costs to changes in activity levels, whereby costs decline less when sales decrease than they increase when sales rise. Although this phenomenon has been widely documented in accounting and management research, evidence on its determinants remains dispersed across behavioral, governance, organizational and institutional perspectives. This paper aims to systematically review the determinants of sticky cost behavior among organizations worldwide. Guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) protocol and the PICo framework, Scopus-indexed journal articles published between 2021 and 2026, with thirteen studies retained after explicit screening and eligibility assessment. The results were based on a thematic analysis of thirteen selected studies; five dominant themes are identified: 1) managerial expectations; 2) monitoring structure; 3) resource flexibility; 4) organizational constraints; and 5) the institutional environment. The findings demonstrate that sticky cost behavior arises from the interaction between managerial cognition and organizational context rather than from adjustment costs alone. This study contributes by integrating fragmented evidence into a coherent framework that explains sticky cost behavior as a behavioral, organizational and institutional phenomenon rather than merely a mechanical adjustment-cost outcome. This paper also contributes to SDG 8, SDG 12, and SDG 16 by offering insights into sustainable organisational performance, responsible resource management, and stronger governance practices.
Downloads
References
Abu-Serdaneh, J. (2023). New insights of asymmetric cost behavior in non-financial MENA companies. Information Sciences Letters, 12(1), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.18576/isl/120109
Amjad, A., Kordel, P., & Fernandes, G. (2023). The systematic review in the field of management sciences. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology Organization and Management Series, 2023(170), 9.
Anderson, M. C., Banker, R. D., & Janakiraman, S. N. (2003). Are selling, general, and administrative costs “sticky”? Journal of Accounting Research, 41(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.00095
Atawnah, N., Ajmal, T. K., & Manchanda, D. (2025). Geopolitical risk, managerial ability and cost stickiness. Finance Research Letters, 85, Article 108211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.108211
Ballas, A., Naoum, V.-C., & Vlismas, O. (2022). The effect of strategy on the asymmetric cost behavior of SG&A expenses. European Accounting Review, 31(2), 409–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2020.1813601
Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., de Jonge, G. B., Holland, L., & Bekhuis, T. (2016). De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(3), 240–243
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health, 24(1), 1–6.
Calderon-Monge, E., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2024). The role of digitalization in business and management: A systematic literature review. Review of Managerial Science, 18(2), 449–491.
Chen, C. X., Nasev, J., & Wu, S. Y.-C. (2022). CFO overconfidence and cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 34(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.2308/JMAR-18-055
Fernandes, C., & Ferreira, J. J. (2022). Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice. Review of Managerial Science, 16(8), 2577.
Guo, J., & Md Kassim, A. A. (2025). Digital transformation, disclosure quality, and green innovation: What does board independence matter? International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.14419/zd9jjr88
Hoşomi, S., & Ge, G. (2025). The impact of organizational capital on cost stickiness: Evidence from Japanese firms. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(10), 559. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18100559
https://doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2023.170.1
Jatiningrum, C., Fauzi, F., Utami, B. H., & Kassim, A. A. M. (2023). Mitigate type II agency conflict through good corporate governance and disclosure quality. AKUNTABILITAS, 17(1), 1-16.
Kim, J.-B., Lee, J. J., & Park, J. C. (2022). Internal control weakness and the asymmetrical behavior of selling, general, and administrative costs. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 37(1), 259–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X19868114
Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Dasí-Rodríguez, S. (2020). The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16, 1023–1042.
Kraus, S., Breier, M., Lim, W. M., Dabić, M., Kumar, S., Kanbach, D. K., Mukherjee, D., Corvello, V., Chousa, J. P., Liguori, E. W., Palacios-Marqués, D., Schiavone, F., Ferraris, A.,
Kwon, Y., Lemieux, M., McTavish, J., & Wathen, N. (2015). Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 103(4), 184–188.
Le, A.-T., Tran, T. P., & Cheng, T.-C. F. (2022). Do female directors mitigate asymmetric cost behavior? Evidence from international data. Finance Research Letters, 49, 103121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103121
Lenart-Gansiniec, R. (2022). The dilemmas of systematic literature review: the context of crowdsourcing in science. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 58(1), 11.
Lim, W. R., & Md Kassim, A. A. (2022). The impact of corporate governance characteristics on firm performance in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Applied Social Science, 8(3), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.33642/ijbass.v8n3p4
Marcos-Pablos, S., & García‐Peñalvo, F. J. (2018). Decision support tools for SLR search string construction. 660.
McKeown, S., & Mir, Z. M. (2021). Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: Evaluating the performance of different methods for de-duplicating references. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 38.
McKeown, S., & Mir, Z. M. (2024). Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: A follow-up study to evaluate the performance of various automated methods for reference de-duplication. Research Synthesis Methods, 15(6), 896–904
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
Nguyen, K., Akbari, M., Quang, H. T., McDonald, S., Hoang, T.-H., Yap, T. L., & George, M. (2023). Navigating Environmental Challenges through Supply Chain Quality Management 4.0 in Circular Economy: A Comprehensive Review [Review of Navigating Environmental Challenges through Supply Chain Quality Management 4.0 in Circular Economy: A Comprehensive Review]. Sustainability, 15(24), 16720. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
Njoku, O. E., & Lee, Y. (2025). Agency costs, ownership structure, and cost stickiness: Implications for sustainable corporate governance. Sustainability, 17(11), 5144. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115144
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., Stewart, L. A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A. C., Welch, V. A., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n7
Pan, A., Wang, H., & Xu, L. (2024). Confucian culture and cost stickiness. Accounting & Finance, 64(3), 3029–3064. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.13247
Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., & PRISMA-S Group. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 39.
Santos, V. dos, Iwazaki, A. Y., Felizardo, K. R., Souza, É. F. de, & Nakagawa, E. Y. (2021). Towards Sustainability of Systematic Literature Reviews.
Sauer, P. C., & Seuring, S. (2023). How to conduct systematic literature reviews in management research: a guide in 6 steps and 14 decisions. Review of Managerial Science, 17(5), 1899.
Sauer, P. C., & Seuring, S. (2023). How to conduct systematic literature reviews in management research: A guide in 6 steps and 14 decisions. Review of Managerial Science, 17(5), 1899–1933.
Shaffril, H. A. M., Samsuddin, S. M. P., & Abu Samah, A. (2021). The ABC of systematic literature review: The basic methodological guidance for beginners. Quality & Quantity, 55, 1319–1346.
Shan, Y., Richardson, V. J., & Cheng, P. (2024). Assessing the asymmetric cost behavior in China. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 9(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-05-2023-0152
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
Vazov, R., Kanazireva, R., Grynko, T., & Krupskyi, О. (2024). Strategies for Healthcare Disaster Management in the Context of Technology Innovation: The Case of Bulgaria. Medicni Perspektivi, 29(2), 215.
Weber, P., Carl, K. V., & Hinz, O. (2023). Applications of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Finance—a systematic review of Finance, Information Systems, and Computer Science literature. Management Review Quarterly, 74(2), 867.
