Voucher Coverage Shrinks to Nine Workdays

The purchasing power of Brazil's meal voucher (vale-refeição) has eroded to the point where it now covers just nine working days of meals per month, according to a new survey by benefits firm Pluxee. That marks a 4.4% decline from the 10 days recorded a year earlier and means workers must dig into their own pockets to cover the majority of their out-of-home food costs.

The slide is part of a longer trend. In 2019 the same benefit lasted 18 working days; the pandemic interrupted the calculation, but the post-2022 recovery never brought it back to pre-crisis levels. The national average masks sharp regional differences. Roraima fares worst, with the voucher lasting only six working days, followed by Maranhão (seven) and Acre and Rondônia (eight). By contrast, Minas Gerais leads with 13 days, and Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo both reach 12 days.

The mechanics are simple: the average cost of a meal climbed 4.3% to R$44.69, while the average voucher value rose just 1.5% to R$583.75. The gap forces workers to spend an extra 101% of the voucher's face value out-of-pocket each month – roughly R$589. To cope, consumers are shifting behaviour: the average in-person restaurant transaction is R$43.44, compared with R$58.61 for deliveries and online ordering, signalling a deliberate hunt for cheaper options.

Why the Voucher Is Losing Ground and Where It Hurts Most

The inflation–voucher gap

The mismatch between food inflation and benefit adjustments is the root cause. IPCA food-away-from-home inflation reached 6.22% over the period, yet the average voucher value grew only 1.5%. Pluxee’s executive director Antônio Alberto Aguiar calls the discrepancy a clear warning for workers’ food security. Because employers typically adjust benefits once a year and often based on general inflation rather than the specific price of meals, the voucher’s real value keeps shrinking.

Advertisement

Regional inequality as a "perfect storm"

The data shows that the pain is not evenly spread. In Maranhão, Aguiar describes a "perfect storm": the duration of the benefit fell 11.3% and the face value was also cut. States in the North and Northeast tend to have lower nominal voucher amounts and higher relative food costs, leaving workers with far fewer covered days. In the richer Southeast, both the benefit amount and the ability to top-up from wages are greater, resulting in coverage that is nearly double that of the worst-affected states.

The behavioural shift to cheaper eating

Workers are responding by opting for cheaper eating patterns. The R$15 gap between the average in-person meal spend (R$43.44) and online/delivery spend (R$58.61) suggests that many are choosing budget-friendly lunch counters over pricier delivery apps. This trade-off helps stretch the voucher, but it also means sacrificing convenience and variety – a sign that households are under tangible financial strain.

Pluxee’s call for corporate action

As a benefits provider, Pluxee has a vested interest in a healthier voucher ecosystem, but its survey puts numbers behind a real squeeze. Aguiar argues that companies need to review their benefits policies so the voucher can once again fulfil its role of guaranteeing adequate nutrition. The data provides a benchmark: to simply keep pace with food inflation, the average voucher would need to rise by about 6.22%, not 1.5%.

What Workers and Employers Can Do Now

For workers

  • Stick to in-person dining: The average spend per transaction at restaurants and snack bars is R$43.44 – R$15 less than the typical delivery order. Avoiding delivery apps can make the monthly voucher last longer.
  • Know your state’s coverage: If you work in Roraima, Maranhão, Acre or Rondônia, your voucher covers far fewer days than the national average. Factor this into monthly budgeting and, where possible, negotiate a higher benefit or a living allowance that reflects local costs.

For employers

  • Benchmark against meal inflation, not general inflation: The voucher rose only 1.5% while food-away-from-home inflation hit 6.22%. A re-adjustment to match actual meal price changes – roughly R$36 per month on the average voucher – would stop the erosion.
  • Consider geographic differentiation: A flat national voucher value punishes employees in states with higher food costs. Companies with a multi-state footprint could index the benefit to local meal-price surveys, as the coverage gap between Minas Gerais (13 days) and Roraima (6 days) shows.
  • Anticipate turnover risk: When workers must pay more than the voucher’s face value out-of-pocket each month, the benefit stops being a retention tool and becomes a source of dissatisfaction. Reviewing the policy could head off departures, especially in hard-hit regions.