Across 515 studies and more than 250,000 participants, contact between groups typically reduces prejudice, and effects typically extended to the whole group beyond the person met.
A consistent but modest effect, which points to incremental change.
Two volunteers, four conversations, six weeks
Many employees rarely have a reason to talk at length with someone whose life looks very different from their own. The Empathy Project gives them a structured way to do it: four one-hour audio calls with a volunteer from another culture, arranged by Acquaint, with light prompts that move past small talk without scripting what either person should discover.
Both people in every conversation are volunteers. An employee gives about seven hours across six weeks, and the conversation partner gives about four, bringing their own questions and reasons for showing up. Either person can offer knowledge, ask for help or learn something unfamiliar, and because both are volunteers, the time on both sides is counted.
A champion inside the company frames the experience with a Brief, checks in while the conversations happen and leads a Debrief at the end. Research on contact between groups gives a reason to take one-to-one encounters seriously, and the project is designed to learn what they change.
Five elements, one cohort
The design follows the Brief, Check-in, Debrief cycle RW Institute uses across its volunteering work. Select an element to see what happens, what your company provides, and what the founding cohorts received.
Four conversations
4 × 1 hour · weeks 1 to 6
What happens
One-to-one audio calls with a volunteer from another culture, arranged by Acquaint. Light prompts move past small talk without scripting what either person should discover.
Your company’s part
Your company agrees the cohort schedule and support before participants begin. Acquaint handles onboarding, matching and scheduling, and employees join by audio call.
In the founding cohorts
34 of 41 employees joined at least one conversation and 14 reached four or more across the two founding cohorts.
Time on both sides
7employee hours
+
~4partner hours
=
~11shared volunteer hours per completed seat
Employee time is a one-hour Brief, four one-hour conversations, an hour of guided reflection and a one-hour Debrief. Counting both sides matters, since the partner also gives time, stories and attention.
What the first companies found
Between June and September 2026 the first cohorts ran with an international law firm and Dolby. The data are participation snapshots and appreciation notes, so they describe engagement and what people valued, and were not designed to measure change.
Participation, from sign-up to four conversations
Law firm, August 19 snapshot, plus Dolby, September 9 update (reconfirmed September 17)
Signed up
41
Listed as active
36 88%
At least one conversation
34 83%
Four or more conversations
14 34%
Percentages are computed here from the published counts, relative to sign-ups. The cohorts were at different points in delivery, so the snapshots should not be read as a comparison between companies. Four conversations do not establish completion of the Brief, reflection or Debrief.
Combined hours
168
Reported by Acquaint on September 18, 2026, counting employees and partners together. A one-hour call between two volunteers adds two hours.
Appreciation notes
85
49 written by employees
36 received from partners
Written to say thank you, so they show what people valued and cannot stand for everyone’s experience.
What people said they valued
Being listened to
Partners appreciated employees who remembered details and showed patience; employees valued partners who helped them through first calls and the platform.
Nervousness giving way to comfort
Some accounts describe familiar interests emerging alongside very different lives.
Curiosity, sometimes surprise
Participants discussed assumptions through the stories they exchanged. A Dolby employee described learning about the diversity inside a country well beyond its food.
Beyond the call
One employee reported sharing something learned with others afterward, and other notes express intentions to explore further.
“The experience with your platform and connecting with people around the world is amazing.”
What the pilot supports
Conversations can give people experiences worth returning to and thinking about. Participants describe reciprocal attention, nervousness giving way to comfort, and curiosity, and one employee reported sharing what was learned with others afterward.
What it cannot establish yet
Lasting empathy, more accurate understanding or changed assumptions. The pilot did not measure them, and it cannot separate the effect of the full design from the conversations alone.
What changes for the next cohorts
The partners aim to make the reflection route clear before anyone starts, have prompts arrive when they are useful, and give champions a simple way to see who needs a nudge to come back.
US$70 a seat, with every dollar shown
The standard price is US$70 per employee seat, paid as a charitable contribution through RW Institute’s fiscal sponsor, Global Impact; ask your tax adviser how it applies to your company. It covers the whole six weeks: four matched conversations, the Brief and Debrief with your champion, guided reflection and support throughout. For a completed seat that works out to about US$10 per employee volunteer hour.
Plan a first wave
A cohort starts at 50 seats. Choose a cohort size to see the investment and the volunteer hours it creates.
Seats
100
suits a company of about 4,000 people
Investment
US$7,000
at US$70 per seat
Employee volunteer hours if every seat completes
700
7 per employee: Brief, four conversations, reflection hour, Debrief
Shared hours if every seat completes
1,100
about 11 per completed seat
Not sure how many seats? The planning model assumes 25% of employees are realistically likely to opt into volunteering and recommends seats for 10% of that pool, about 2.5% of headcount, so 100 seats suits a company of about 4,000 people. These are working assumptions; the same model runs in the calculator on the complete picture page.
Where each US$70 goes
Acquaint conversation platform
$34.40
Inqli reflection environment
$8.10
RW Institute delivery and oversight
$8.00
Administration
$7.70
Fiscal sponsor
$4.90
Marketing
$2.40
Surplus reserve
$4.50
The Inqli share is for the dedicated reflection space, which is coming soon. Until it opens, guided prompts reach participants directly.
Why the price changed
The founding cohorts ran at US$35 per seat, set as close to cost as possible. The pilot showed what each seat takes: recruiting conversation partners across time zones, supporting champions, running reflection and following up with people who stall. In October 2026 the partners set the standard price at US$70.
Try it before you commit
You can sign up through Acquaint to try one conversation at no cost before your company decides, so a CSR lead or future champion knows what a conversation feels like.
Sign up for a conversationMaking the case inside your company
Leaders often need to show how a new program connects to what their company already cares about. Here is what founding cohorts, partners and RW Institute said about making the case at the October 15 company salon.
Professional skills, not only personal growth
In one founding company’s pilot debrief, several client-facing teams, including sales, said the experience would benefit their people professionally. As its program lead explained, in sales you never know who you will be talking to, so you need to be able to build a relationship with anyone.
It fits where you need it
The experience can sit in CSR, learning and development, or wellness, wherever a leader thinks it fits best, as Acquaint described it at the October 15 salon.
Very little friction
One hour at a time, on a computer, with no travel and no special skills. One founding company used that ease to invite teams that were not already volunteering.
Practice in listening
A participant from the founding law-firm cohort said the emphasis on listening goes a long way at work, where people often interrupt and assume they know what others will say.
A business case builder is planned: share your company’s details and what you are trying to do, and get a case as a web page, slide deck or Word document.
Planned
A person, not an email blast
Volunteer programs tend to fade the same way: someone sends one email, a few people sign up, and nobody keeps it going. The project puts a trained champion at the centre of every cohort, someone who keeps inviting people and gets better at it over time.
In place
A trained champion per cohort
Your champion runs the Brief and Debrief and checks in during the six weeks. RW Institute prepares champions and provides playbooks and office hours.
Planned
Simpler ways to follow up
For the next cohorts, the partners aim to make the reflection route clear before anyone starts and to give champions a simple way to see who needs a nudge.
Proposed
A company champion council
Champions would meet live once a month or once a quarter to swap what works, pass lessons to newcomers and help steer the project. The first meetings are proposed for this quarter.
Proposed
A partner council alongside it
Nonprofit and volunteer-network partners would have a council of their own. Whether the two councils eventually meet together is an open question for partners to help answer.
How one founding company ran its pilot
The volunteer program lead at one founding company, who acted as champion for its cohort, described her approach at the October 15 company salon. She said nearly everyone she invited responded positively.
01
Try it yourself first
She and her director tried Acquaint conversations first; her director became a strong supporter, doing several calls a week.
02
Invite beyond the usual volunteers
She deliberately invited influential leaders of teams that were not already volunteering, including some who might be more skeptical, people whose candid feedback she valued.
03
Lead with what your people value
With many scientists and researchers at her company, she led with the science behind the program and the research their participation would contribute to.
04
Start small to grow champions
A smaller first group was chosen partly so its members could champion the program if it grows.
05
Brief and sign up on one call
An email and calendar invite led to one call that served as both a briefing and a question session. She asked people to set up their Acquaint profiles during the call if they were interested, and said getting them to act on that call was key.
Answers before you decide
Open a question to see the answer and where it comes from.
About seven hours across six weeks: a one-hour Brief, four one-hour conversations, an hour of guided reflection and a one-hour Debrief. Conversations are one-to-one audio calls arranged by Acquaint.
Source: rw.institute/empathy-projectThe research behind the design
The design draws on published research, and each cohort is meant to contribute to the next round of learning. Academic readers can find the full evidence base, expected effects and limits in the research overview for academic partners.
Reduced anxiety and increased empathy and perspective-taking carry contact effects more strongly than knowledge about the other group.
Conversations prioritize connection and personal stories over cultural instruction.
Across 25 experiments, imagining another person’s perspective did not improve accuracy about their thoughts and sometimes reduced it. In a final experiment, asking them directly did.
The design puts people in real conversation, where they can ask.
Across 27 controlled workplace trials training emotional competencies, empathy included, the effect was moderate and lasted beyond three months, though study quality was low.
Workplace training effects can last, but the evidence base is uneven.
Across 57 sources, individual participation in corporate volunteering showed small or nonsignificant relations with well-being, commitment, job satisfaction and positive behaviours. Organizational participation related to all four, and more strongly for two.
The project does not promise engagement or retention gains from individual participation.
Combined results only
The project is being designed to protect individual responses, and research findings are shared with participating companies only as approved, combined learning.
Reflection stays private
Private reflections stay in participants’ own notes. Notes people choose to share may be summarized in anonymized, combined form, with no names attached.
Shape the questions
Participating organizations can help shape the questions they would most like the next phase to answer.
Learning built in
Each cohort is meant to contribute anonymized, combined learning about empathy development, behavioural practice and contact across cultures.
A path for people who want more
In development
Global Mentorship Initiative
Structured one-to-one virtual career mentoring for students preparing to enter the workforce, explored as a next volunteering step after a cohort.
Explore mentoring with GMI
In development
V2V.net
A corporate volunteering platform and consultancy with mentoring programs. RW Institute and Acquaint are exploring a mentoring collaboration with founder Bruno Ayres.
Explore V2V.net
In development
Mountaintop International
Mountaintop runs leadership fellowships for social impact leaders working in low-income communities. RW Institute and Mountaintop are exploring a pathway in which employees could serve as advisors to its Fellows.
Explore Mountaintop International
Planned
Returning cohorts
People who repeat the experience, so the project can learn what practice adds and whether listening becomes more deliberate.
Ask about a returning cohortWhere the second wave fits
Dates from the fourth quarter of 2026 onward are plans and may move as companies and research partners join.
May 2026
Completed
Project introduced to companies; first research conversations.
June to July 2026
Completed
Law-firm and Dolby cohorts launch; champion kit and program guide delivered.
August 2026
Completed
First law-firm Debrief; partners review early results.
September 2026
Completed
Pilot learning report published.
October 2026
Completed
Volunteer-network and researcher invitations sent; standard seat price set at US$70.
October 13 to 15, 2026
Under way
Three salons: volunteer networks, researchers, and companies.
Coming soon
Planned
Inqli reflection space available to cohorts; date to be confirmed.
Q4 2026
Planned
Second wave of companies invited to enroll; a third founding company, which has purchased seats, plans its first cohort; new volunteer networks onboard through Acquaint; first company and partner council meetings proposed.
Q1 2027
Planned
Research questions and consent agreed with academic partners; starting assessment in place; next cohorts run the complete design.
Q2 2027
Planned
Returning-participant cohorts; first follow-up results; councils become a standard part of every cohort.
Q3 2027
Planned
Mentoring pathways open with partners; first cohorts outside the US explored with V2V.
Q4 2027
Planned
Full account of the 2027 cohorts shared with partners.
2028
Planned
Written research reports, after the project period closes.
11 · Get started
Three steps to a first cohort
-
1
Try a conversation yourself
Take part in one conversation through Acquaint at no cost, and invite a likely champion to do the same.
Sign up with Acquaint -
2
Talk with RW Institute
Agree the cohort schedule, the champion and the support your company will provide before participants begin.
Contact RW Institute -
3
Plan seats for the second wave
Start with the people most likely to say yes, using the planning model above, and enroll for the second wave in the fourth quarter of 2026.
Read the complete picture
Sources and further reading
Research
Eyal, T., Steffel, M., & Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000115
Howard, M. C., & Serviss, E. (2022). The antecedents and outcomes of corporate volunteering: An employee- and organizational-level meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(2), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2021-0018
Mehler, M., Balint, E., Gralla, M., Pößnecker, T., Gast, M., Hölzer, M., Kösters, M., & Gündel, H. (2024). Training emotional competencies at the workplace: A systematic review and metaanalysis. BMC Psychology, 12, Article 718. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02198-3
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504
Project record
RW Institute (2026). The Empathy Project: Pilot Learning Report, updated September 21, 2026. Participation figures, appreciation-note counts and the learning priorities for 2027.
RW Institute (2026). The Empathy Project overview and complete picture. Program design, seat price and breakdown, planning model and partner roles.
RW Institute (2026). The Empathy Project: research overview for academic partners. Full evidence base with 14 references, expected effects, threats to validity and the proposed research design.
Acquaint participation snapshots (August 19 and September 9, 2026), appreciation-note collections and conversation-hour correspondence (September 18, 2026). Unpublished; summarized in the pilot report without identifying participants.