What is new in sticky costs? Exploratory meta-analysis of asymmetric cost behavior

Abstract

The concept of asymmetric cost behaviour has been incorrectly referred to as 'active cost management' in early studies. Malcom (1991) first introduced the concept of rigid costs, which was then supported by Noreen and Soderstrom (1994) with empirical evidence from a single hospital. However, it was not until Anderson et al. (2003) popularised the term 'sticky costs' with a widely accepted empirical test showing that sales, general and administrative costs increase with sales, but decrease less when income falls. Direct antecedents include a literature review of 80 articles up to 2020 (Ibrahim et al., 2022) and a meta-analysis of 84 studies up to 2020 (Naoum et al., 2023). This study aims to provide an updated summary of the literature on asymmetric cost behaviour or sticky costs. The article begins with a descriptive analysis, akin to a bibliometric study of 251 articles, which identifies the most influential research papers and journals. It also provides a meta-analysis of 34 articles, comprising 81 studies, which identifies differences in cost behaviour based on the degree of economic development and the type of cost studied. This exploratory study discloses asymmetries in the use of data and citations of studies, thereby contributing to the consolidation of the theory of asymmetric cost behaviour. The meta-analysis corroborates the existence of sticky costs; however, the degree of cost stickiness is better explained by cost type than by the localisation of the company.