EFFECT OF CEO DUALITY ON ASYMMETRIC COST BEHAVIOR

Keywords: Asymmetric Cost Behavior, Sticky Costs, CEO Duality, Agency Theory

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze the effect of CEO duality on the asymmetric cost behavior. 178 Brazilian publicly traded companies were analyzed from 2012-2021. Descriptive statistics and hierarchical linear regression were used, operationalized using SPSS® software. The results showed that companies with CEO duality, in the face of periods of falling sales, had a higher degree of asymmetry in costs than companies without CEO duality, which suggests that managers with duality have more aggressive cost reduction strategies in periods of falling sales. This study can be useful for shareholders and board members, as it can alert them to the effect that CEO duality can have on organizations' cost behavior. Thus, mechanisms can be created, such as the separation of the position of CEO and member of the board of directors, to mitigate the manager's opportunistic behavior. It also helps professionals, such as auditors and market analysts, to consider in their work procedures the effect that CEO duality can have on companies' cost behavior.

Author Biographies

Stephan Klaus Bubeck, Universidade Regional de Blumenau (FURB)

PhD student in Accounting Sciences and Administration at the Universidade Regional de Blumenau (FURB)

Nelson Hein, Universidade Regional de Blumenau (FURB)

PhD in Production Engineering at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) and professor of the Postgraduate Program in Accounting Sciences at the Universidade Regional de Blumenau (FURB)

References

Abudy, M. M., & Shust, E. (2022). Cost Behavior and Profitability of Family Firms. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4160644

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

Balakrishnan, R., Petersen, M. J., & Soderstrom, N. S. (2004). Does capacity utilization affect the “stickiness” of cost?. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 19(3), 283-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X0401900303

Balakrishnan, R., Labro, E., & Soderstrom, N. S. (2014). Cost structure and sticky costs. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 91-116. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-50831

Ballas, A., Naoum, V. C., & Vlismas, O. (2020). 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

Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., & Chen, L. T. (2013). Employment protection legislation, adjustment costs and cross-country differences in cost behavior. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 55(1), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2012.08.003

Banker, R. D., & Byzalov, D. (2014). Asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 43-79. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-50846

Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., & Plehn-Dujowich, J. M. (2014). Demand uncertainty and cost behavior. The Accounting Review, 89(3), 839-865. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50661

Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., Fang, S., & Liang, Y. (2018). Cost management research. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 30(3), 187-209. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51965

Berle, A.; Means, G. (1932). The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York: Macmillan.

Bugeja, M., Lu, M., & Shan, Y. (2015). Cost stickiness in Australia: Characteristics and determinants. Australian Accounting Review, 25(3), 248-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12066

Calleja, K., Steliaros, M., & Thomas, D. C. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research, 17(2), 127-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2006.02.001

Chen, C. X., Lu, H., & Sougiannis, T. (2012). The agency problem, corporate governance, and the asymmetrical behavior of selling, general, and administrative costs. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(1), 252-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01094.x

Degenhart, L., Lunardi, M. A., da Silva Zonatto, V. C., & Dal Magro, C. B. (2021). Effect of Financial Restriction on Sticky Costs: Empirical Evidence from Brazil. Revista de Negócios, 26(1), 6-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.7867/1980-4431.2021v26n1p6-21

Dierynck, B., Landsman, W. R., & Renders, A. (2012). Do managerial incentives drive cost behavior? Evidence about the role of the zero earnings benchmark for labor cost behavior in private Belgian firms. The Accounting Review, 87(4), 1219-1246. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50153

Eisenhardt, K. M. (2015). Teoria da agência: uma avaliação e revisão. RGC-Revista de Governança Corporativa, 2(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.21434/IberoamericanJCG.v2i1.14

Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288-307. https://doi.org/10.1086/260866

Florackis, C., & Ozkan, A. (2009). The impact of managerial entrenchment on agency costs: An empirical investigation using UK panel data. European Financial Management, 15(3), 497-528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-036X.2007.00418.x

Geletkanycz, M. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). The external ties of top executives: Implications for strategic choice and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 654-681. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2393653

Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1-3), 405-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00018-0

Ibrahim, A. E. A. (2018). Board characteristics and asymmetric cost behavior: evidence from Egypt. Accounting Research Journal, 31(2), 301-322. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-11-2015-0148

Ibrahim, A. E. A., Ali, H. M. H. O., & Aboelkheir, H. N. E. R. (2022). Cost stickiness: a systematic literature review of 27 years of research and a future research agenda. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 46, 1-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2021.100439

Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa (2023). Código das Melhores Práticas de Governança Corporativa. (6. ed.). São Paulo: IBGC.

Jensen, M. C. J., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of financial economics, 3(4), 305-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X

Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. The Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831-880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04022.x

Kama, I., & Weiss, D. (2013). Do earnings targets and managerial incentives affect sticky costs?. Journal of Accounting Research, 51(1), 201-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2012.00471.x

Li, W. L., & Zheng, K. (2017). Product market competition and cost stickiness. Review of quantitative finance and accounting, 49, 283-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-016-0591-z

Li, J., & Sun, Z. (2023). Government audit, employee efficiency and labor cost stickiness. Plos one, 18(9), e0291014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291014

Lin, Y. C., Wang, Y. C., Chiou, J. R., & Huang, H. W. (2014). CEO characteristics and internal control quality. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(1), 24-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/corg.12042

Malik, M. (2012). A review and synthesis of 'cost stickiness' literature. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2276760.

Medeiros, O. R. D., Costa, P. D. S., & Silva, C. A. T. (2005). Testes empíricos sobre o comportamento assimétrico dos custos nas empresas brasileiras. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 16, 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-70772005000200005

Pamplona, E., Leite, M., & Costa da Silva Zonatto, V. (2018). Fatores associados ao comportamento dos custos em períodos de prosperidade e crise econômica em empresas dos países que compõe o PIIGS. Estudios Gerenciales, 34(148), 305-319. https://doi.org/10.18046/j.estger.2018.148.2603

Reis, L. S., & Borgert, A. (2018). Análise das pesquisas em comportamento dos custos. Custos e Agronegócio, 14(1), 184-210.

Richartz, F., & Borgert, A. (2021). Fatores explicativos para o comportamento assimétrico dos custos das empresas listadas na B3. Revista Universo Contábil, 16(3), 07-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.4270/ruc2020313

Saito, R., & Silveira, A. D. M. D. (2008). Governança corporativa: custos de agência e estrutura de propriedade. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 48, 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902008000200007

Salehi, M., Ghanbari, E., & Orfizadeh, S. (2021). The relationship between managerial entrenchment and accounting conservatism. Journal of Facilities Management, 19(5), 612-631. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-11-2020-0087

Subramaniam, C., & Watson, M. W. (2016). Additional evidence on the sticky behavior of costs. In Advances in Management Accounting (Vol. 26, pp. 275-305). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-787120150000026006

Weiss, D. (2010). Cost behavior and analysts’ earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review, 85(4), 1441-1471. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.4.1441

Yu, M. (2023). CEO duality and firm performance: A systematic review and research agenda. European Management Review, 20(2), 346-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12522

Published
2025-05-02
Section
Artigos