In 1994 Noreen and Soderstrom formulated two important statements:119 First, the relation between overhead costs and activities is not strictly proportional and second, whereas the design of more sophisticated cost systems incorporating the non-proportional cost behavior may be costly, in an environment where costs are decision relevant, the implementation of such accounting methods is recommended. This phenomenon has already been targeted in Germany in the early thirties of the last century, e.g. Strube (1936) investigated and documented cost behavior patterns. The asymmetry of overhead costs to changes in activity has been documented since then in many publications.120 Naming the phenomenon “sticky”, Anderson, Banker and Janakiraman (2003) refer with this term to differences in the extent of increases and decreases in costs corresponding to equivalent in-/decreases in activity. A good example is the German economy, where labor costs can more easily be increased than decreased in times of economic downturn, because of union power and strict labor laws.121 Up to this point managerial research has focused on discovering and explaining the sticky costs phenomenon. Homburg (2004) develops a method for binary portfolio decisions, incorporating asymmetric cost-behavior. Building on this methodology, this chapter widens the focus on pricing decisions incorporating sticky cost-behavior. The assumption is, that costing systems neglecting cost stickiness are, for one, unable to reflect real cost consumption and therefore, for the other, lead to biased decisions.