The sunk cost fallacy applies to more situations than just those that may incur additional investments, although that is how it is often explained.
For example, suppose I have two desks that I can work at...
Desk A is a rental that costs me $100 per month and I am locked into that contract for the next year.
Desk B I've had for years and it cost me nothing as it was given to me by a neighbor when they moved into a retirement community.
Both desks happen to be from the same manufacturer and are functionally identical.
Choosing to use Desk A because it cost $1200 more than Desk B is an example of the sunk cost fallacy.
I agree that the author doesn't have all the information, and they're just quoting an executive (Kacher). And it's completely possible that Kacher is just making assumptions or excuses about the thought process for the companies pushing RTO.
I will concede that in my comment I went a bit too far in saying that the sunk cost fallacy requires a "net detriment" since as you point out, there could be a situation where someone's sunk cost reasoning is not detrimental but still fallacious. Although I think in the devised scenario, your choice to use rental desk A would indeed be reasonable. The rental desk will incur all the wear and tear while the identically owned desk can be preserved in good condition or perhaps resold at a profit. While in such a scenario you might interpret your desire to use A as irrationally based on the sunk cost, I think it more likely that some inchoate awareness of the true benefits would come into play. How about that. You're so smart that even your dumb decisions end up being pretty smart.
For example, suppose I have two desks that I can work at...
Desk A is a rental that costs me $100 per month and I am locked into that contract for the next year.
Desk B I've had for years and it cost me nothing as it was given to me by a neighbor when they moved into a retirement community.
Both desks happen to be from the same manufacturer and are functionally identical.
Choosing to use Desk A because it cost $1200 more than Desk B is an example of the sunk cost fallacy.
I agree that the author doesn't have all the information, and they're just quoting an executive (Kacher). And it's completely possible that Kacher is just making assumptions or excuses about the thought process for the companies pushing RTO.