The Effect of Agency Problems on Cost Stickiness and the Moderating Role of Corporate Governance Quality in Family and Non-Family Firms

Kazempour Barough, Mehdi; Didar, Hamzeh; Ghayour, Farzad

[Home ] [Archive]

[ فارسی ]

journal of Value & Behavioral Accounting

Main Menu

Home

Journal Information

Editorial Board

Articles archive

Publication Ethics

For Authors

Peer Review Process

Registration

Site Facilities

Contact us

Search in website

Receive site information

Back to the articles list

Back to browse issues page

The Effect of Agency Problems on Cost Stickiness and the Moderating Role of Corporate Governance Quality in Family and Non-Family Firms

Mehdi Kazempour Barough¹

, Hamzeh Didar

², Farzad Ghayour³

1- MSc Student of Management Accounting, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran (st-m.kazempour@urmia.ac.ir)
2- Hamzeh Didar Associate Professor, Department of Accounting, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran. (Corresponding Author). , h.didar@urmia.ac.ir
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran (f.ghayour@urmia.ac.ir)

Abstract: (878 Views)

Understanding cost behavior and identifying cost stickiness is crucial for internal and external stakeholders, as it influences company profitability and decision-making. Cost stickiness arises from the asymmetry in cost responses to changes in sales and can be affected by the agency problem, which often leads to inefficiency in cost reduction. The quality of corporate governance can play a significant role in mitigating the agency problem and reducing cost stickiness. On the other hand, family and non-family firms, due to their structural and managerial differences, provide an appropriate environment for examining these interactions. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to investigate the effect of the agency problem on cost stickiness in family and non-family firms, considering the moderating role of corporate governance quality. To this end, data from 141 companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange during the period from 2013 to 2022 have been used. Multiple regression models were applied to test the hypotheses. The findings indicate that the agency problem increases cost stickiness. Furthermore, the effect of the agency problem on cost stickiness is more pronounced in non-family firms compared to family firms. Additionally, high-quality corporate governance significantly reverses the direct impact of the agency problem on cost stickiness in both family and non-family firms. Understanding the interaction of these factors allows organizations to tailor their governance practices to their specific ownership structures, thereby reducing the risk of cost stickiness and ensuring financial sustainability.

Keywords: Cost stickiness, Agency Problems, Corporate Governance Quality, Family Firms, Non-Family Firms.

Type of Study: Applicable | Subject: Special
Received: 2024/08/13 | Accepted: 2024/10/28

References

1. Abudy, M., and E. Shust. 2022. Cost behavior and profitability of family firms. Working paper. Available at: ssrn.com/abstract=4160644.

2. Affes, W., and A. Jarboui. 2023. The impact of corporate governance on financial performance: a cross-sector study. Int J Discl Gov 20: 374-394.

3. Ahmed, AM., D. Nugraha., and I. Hágen. 2023. The Relationship between Capital Structure and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Agency Cost. Risks.;11(6):102. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/risks11060102

4. Almaharmeh, MI., A. Shehadeh., H. Alkayed., M. Aladwan., and M. Iskandrani. 2024. Family Ownership, Corporate Governance Quality and Tax Avoidance: Evidence from an Emerging Market—The Case of Jordan. Journal of Risk and Financial Management.; 17(2):86.

5. Alves, I., and S. Lourenço. 2023. An exploratory analysis of incentive packages and managerial performance. J Manag Control 34, :377-409.

6. Amin, A., R. Ali., and R. Rehman. 2022. Cost Stickiness and The Likelihood of Dividend Payouts. The Lahore Journal of Economics, 27(1): 116-130.

7. Anderson, M., R. Banker, R. Huang, and S. Janakiraman. 2007. Cost Behavior and Fundamental Analysis of SG&A Costs. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 22(1): 1–28.

8. Anderson, M., R. Banker., and S. Janakiraman. 2003. Are Selling, General, and Administrative Costs Sticky?. Journal of Accounting Research 41(1): 47–63.

9. Anderson, S., and W. Lanen. 2007. Understanding Cost Management: What Can We Learn from the Evidence on Sticky Costs?, Working Paper, Rice University, University of Michigan. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=975135.

10. Balakrishnan, R., E. Labro., and N. Soderstrom. 2014. Cost Structure and Sticky Costs. Journal of Management Accounting Research. 26(2): 91–116.

11. Balakrishnan, R., and T. Gruca. 2008. Cost stickiness and core competency:Anote. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(4): 993-1006.

12. Banker, R., D. Byzalov., and J. Dujowich. 2011. Sticky cost behavior: theory and evidence. Working Paper, Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia.7(2) :1-75.

13. Banker, R., and D. Byzalov. 2014. Asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2) :43-79.

14. Baumgarten, D., U. Bonenkamp., and C. Homburg. 2010. The Information Content of the SG&A Ratio. Journal of Management Accounting Research. 22(1) :1-22.

15. Bhakar, S., P. Sharma., and S. Kumar. 2024. Ownership Structure and Firm Performance: A Comprehensive Review and Empirical Analysis. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(2) :1-42.

16. Bhaumik, S., and R. Dimova, 2015. Agency Problems and Familiness. In: How Family Firms Differ. Palgrave Macmillan, London. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137473585_2.

17. Cen, X., Y. Qiu., and T. Wang. 2023. Corporate social responsibility and employee retention. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144689.

18. Chen, C., H. Lu., and T. Sougiannis. 2012. The Agency Problem, Corporate Governance, and the Asymmetrical Behavior of Selling, General, and Administrative Costs, Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(1): 252–282.

19. Chen, L. 2022. The determinants of cost stickiness in family firms: evidence from the United States. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow Available at: https://theses.gla.ac.uk/83034/1/2022ChenLiYuPhD.pdf

20. Chen, W., G. Zhou, and X. Zhu. 2019. CEO tenure and corporate social responsibility performance, Journal of Business Research, 95: 292-302.

21. Chung, C., S. Hur., and C. Liu. 2019. Institutional investors and cost stickiness: Theory and evidence. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 47:336-350.

22. Costa, M., and A. Habib. 2023. Cost stickiness and firm value. Journal of Managment Control 34: 235–273.

23. Dou, Y., S. Sahgal., and E. Zhang. 2015. Should Independent Directors Have Term Limits? The Role of Experience in Corporate Governance. Financial Management, 44(3): 583–621.

24. Jensen, M., and W. Meckling, 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and capital structure, in: Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3., No. 4: 305-360.

25. Khandelwal, V., P. Tripathi., V. Chotia., M. Srivastava., P. Sharma., and S. Kalyani. 2023. Examining the Impact of Agency Issues on Corporate Performance: A Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 16(12):497.

26. Lai, E., A. Latiff., and T. Qun. 2023. The impact of free cash flow on firm’s performance: Evidence from Malaysia, Eurasian Economic Perspectives. 14(1): 3-16.

27. Lawrence, B., and C. Marcus. 2006. Corporate Governance and Firm Operating Performance. SSRN Electronic Journal. 32(10): 129-144.

28. Lenihan, O., and N. Brennan. 2023. Do boards effectively link firm objectives to CEO bonus performance measures? Journal of Management and Governance. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-023-09690-9

29. Li, J., and Z. Lou. 2021. Product Market Competition and Cost Stickiness: Evidence from China, Managerial and Decision Economics, 42(7):1808– 1821.

30. Lieb, L., and J. Schuffels. 2022. Inflation expectations and consumer spending: the role of household balance sheets. Empir Econ 63, :2479-2512.

31. Naoum, V., D. Ntounis., G. Papanastasopoulos., and O. Vlismas. 2023 .Asymmetric cost behavior: Theory, meta-analysis, and implications. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 53 (9):100-578.

32. Rashid Khan, H., W. Khidmat., O. Hares., , N. Muhammad, and K. Saleem. 2020. Corporate Governance Quality, Ownership Structure, Agency Costs and Firm Performance. Evidence from an Emerging Economy. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 13(7):154.

33. Reimer, K. 2019. Theoretical Foundations of Credit Risk Fundamentals and Methods of Determining Credit Risk. In: Asymmetric Cost Behavior. Quantitatives Controlling. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22822-4_3.

34. Restuti, M., L. Gani., , E. Shauki., and L. Leo. 2023. Strategy and cost stickiness under different managerial abilities: Evidence from Southeast Asia. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1).

35. Rezaee, Z., and M.Safarzadeh, 2023. Corporate governance and earnings quality: the behavioral theory of corporate governance (evidence from Iran). Corporate Governance (Bingley), 23(1):189-218.

36. Siciliano, G., and D. Weiss. 2023. Family Ownership Influence on Cost Elasticity Forthcoming on European Accounting Review،20 (2): 1-31.

37. Tileal, M., F. Nassirzadeh., M. Saei., and D. Askarany. 2023. The Impact of Ownership Type on Labour Cost Stickiness. Journal of Risk and Financial Management.; 16(5):268.

38. Weiss, D. 2010. Cost behavior and analysts’ earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review, 85(4), 2442-2472.

39. Xu, F., X. Liu., Q. Liu., X. Zhu., and D. Zhou. 2024. Environmental investment growth (EIG) and corporate cost stickiness in China: substantive or symbolic management?. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 15(1) :148-170.

40. Yan, J., T. Khan., N. Zhu., N. Awais khan., and H. Hasan. 2023 . Does CEO’s initial tenure enhance CSR practices? Evaluating the consequences of CEO’s initial tenure CSR engagement in China. Environ Dev Sustain. 26(9):1-24.

41. Zhang, B., L. Yang., and R. Zhou. 2023. Internal governance and cost stickiness. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 35(1):173-194.

42. Zhang, L., J. Li., and H. Wang. 2021, IPO Over-Funding and Cost Stickiness. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 28(4): 411-426.

Add your comments about this article

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Back to the articles list

Back to browse issues page

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.09 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4666