METHODS: RESULTS: We identified nine articles (conducted in Australia (n = 5), Europe (n = 3) and China (n = 1)); three reported healthcare costs associated with excessive sedentary time, whilst six were economic evaluations of interventions targeting sedentary behaviour. Healthcare costs associated with excessive sedentary time as reported in cost of illness studies were substantial; however, none explored non-health sector costs. In contrast, all full economics evaluations adopted a societal perspective; however, costs included differed depending on the intervention context. One sedentary behaviour intervention in children was cost-saving. The five interventions targeting occupational sitting time of adults in office workplaces were cost-effective. Physical environmental changes such as sit-stand desks, active workstations etc., were the key cost driver.Sedentary behaviour is likely associated with excess healthcare costs, although future research should also explore costs across other sectors. Cost-effectiveness evidence of sedentary behaviour reduction interventions in workplaces is limited but consistent. Key gaps relate to the economic credentials of interventions targeting children, and modelling of long-term health benefits of interventions.