N※N

Cracker Barrel Mandates Employees Eat Only at Its Restaurants on Business Trips

  //food-wine.news-articles.net/content/2026/02/03 .. t-only-at-its-restaurants-on-business-trips.html
  Published in Food and Wine on Tuesday, February 3rd 2026 at 14:52 GMT by WFLA News Channel 8
      Locales: Tennessee, Florida, UNITED STATES

ORANGEBURG, S.C. - Cracker Barrel Old Country Store is making waves with a recently implemented policy requiring all employees on company business trips to exclusively consume meals purchased from Cracker Barrel locations. While framed as a cost-saving measure, the decision has sparked debate and raised questions about corporate culture and employee autonomy in an era of rising costs and increased scrutiny of business expenses.

The policy, first revealed in an internal memo obtained by CNN Business and widely reported by outlets like WFLA, is a direct response to escalating travel costs impacting the restaurant chain's bottom line. The memo explicitly states the intention is to "ensure we are responsible with company resources and to help offset rising travel expenses." This isn't merely a suggestion; it's a firm requirement, effective immediately for all business travel.

This move is particularly noteworthy given the current economic climate. Inflation, while cooling from its peak, still impacts food costs significantly. Business travel itself is also becoming increasingly expensive, with airline tickets, fuel, and lodging all contributing to higher overall expenditure. Cracker Barrel, like many businesses, is clearly looking for ways to mitigate these pressures. However, choosing to limit meal expenses by only allowing consumption of its own products presents a unique and somewhat controversial approach.

Employee reaction has been mixed, leaning towards negative. One employee, speaking anonymously to CNN Business, described the policy as "just a little ridiculous." While the specific concerns haven't been widely publicized, it's easy to imagine frustrations arising from limited food choices, dietary restrictions, or simply the desire for a break from the same menu during extended travel. Imagine being on a week-long road trip and being restricted to Cracker Barrel breakfast, lunch, and dinner. For employees with allergies or specific dietary needs, the policy could present significant logistical challenges.

Beyond the immediate employee concerns, the policy raises broader questions about the evolving relationship between companies and their workforces. Is this a reasonable attempt to control expenses, or a concerning overreach that demonstrates a lack of trust and respect for employees? Some analysts suggest it reflects a growing trend towards hyper-optimization, where companies squeeze efficiencies from every possible angle, even at the potential cost of employee morale.

Cracker Barrel is not alone in facing rising costs. Many companies are re-evaluating their travel and expense policies. Common strategies include negotiating better rates with hotels and airlines, encouraging virtual meetings, and implementing stricter approval processes for travel requests. However, few have gone as far as mandating employees eat solely at company-owned restaurants. This suggests a particularly aggressive approach to cost control.

Furthermore, the policy could be viewed as a marketing opportunity for Cracker Barrel. By forcing employees to consistently dine at its locations, the company is essentially ensuring a constant stream of "brand ambassadors" who are actively experiencing - and presumably promoting - its food and atmosphere. This indirect marketing benefit, however, is unlikely to outweigh the potential negative impact on employee satisfaction if the policy is perceived as overly restrictive.

The restaurant chain has not yet publicly addressed the backlash, only issuing the internal memo and confirming the policy's implementation. It remains to be seen whether Cracker Barrel will respond to employee concerns or offer any flexibility to accommodate dietary needs or preferences. The effectiveness of this cost-saving measure also remains to be tested. While it may generate short-term savings, the long-term impact on employee morale and company reputation could be significant. This case highlights the delicate balance companies must strike between fiscal responsibility and maintaining a positive and engaged workforce. It will be interesting to watch whether this policy becomes a trend among other national chains looking to tighten their belts.