Institutional Logic is focussing on how broader belief systems shape the cognition and behavior of actors. According to Friedland and Alford (1991) Institutions are defined as both supra organizational patterns of activity by which individuals and organizations produce and reproduce their material subsistence and organize time and space. They are also seen as symbolic systems, ways of ordering reality, thereby rendering experience of time and space meaningful. Thornton and Ocasio (1999) define institutional logics as the socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality. Focusing on macro-societal phenomena, Friedland and Alford (1991) identified several key Institutions: the Capitalist market, bureaucratic state, democratic, nuclear family, and Christianity that are each guided by a distinct institutional logic. More recently, Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury (2012) added community as another key institutional order. This revision to a theoretically abstract and analytically distinct set of ideal types makes it useful for studying multiple logics in conflict and consensus, the hybridization of logics, and institutions in other parts of society and the world. While building on Friedland and Alford’s scheme, the revision addresses the confusion created by conflating institutional sectors with ideology (democracy) and means of organization (bureaucracy), variables that can be characteristic several different institutional sectors. Thornton and Ocasio (2008) discuss the importance of not confusing the ideal types of the inter-institutional system with a description of the empirical observations in a study that is to use the ideal types as meta theory and method of analysis. With this project we would like to explore how hybrid organizations, which incorporate competing institutional logics such as capitalistic market thinking and social objectives are internally managed in order to embody those logics. With regards to the different context in many dimension between China and Switzerland, the comparison between governance of companies in those two countries is thus crucial. This would help to better understand the underlying principle of the institutional logic debate on the one hand side but also help to foster collaboration between the two countries.

The 4th Plenary Meeting of the 18th Central Committee of CPC of 2014 made the decision of accelerating the formulation of the Chinese civil Code in China. To echo this initiative, the National People’s Congress officially launched the formulation of the Civil Code. First and foremost, is to draft the general principle for the Civil Code. Since the reform of the Qing Dynasty, China’s legislation has been following the framework of the statutory law, which is also referred to as the civil legal framework, with the Civil Code as its core symbol. The Civil Code is not only a legal reflection of social and economic life but also a summary of people’s lifestyle. However, as opposed to the legislation model in Germany and France, which separates the legislation of the Civil Code and the Commercial Code, China integrates the legislation of the Civil and Commercial Laws, which is in line with the concept of legislation in Switzerland. Although Switzerland has modified its Obligation Law based on the economic and social changes, the legal logic behind its laws can still be applied to the legislation in China even if these two countries differ a lot in terms of economic and social aspects. It is generally acknowledged in the legal community that the Law of Obligation in Switzerland is praised for its succinctness and articulation. Two important principles are established in the legislation: the first is that every clause should contain a maximum of three paragraphs; second, every paragraph cannot be more than one sentence. With hundreds of years of development, the above principles are followed and respected. The Obligation Law in Switzerland is a federal law, and it is deeply rooted in the practice of laws, making it flexible and accepted by citizens. The pragmatism of the law also influenced the law enforcement in the domestic courts. The public can clearly understand the regulations stipulated in the law, and the law enforcement bodies tries to be precise in the application of laws. This technique of legislation incorporates the rigorousness of the German laws and the resilience of the French laws, which makes it advantageous in the practice of laws. The legislation of China’s Civil Codes is in a critical stage. However, in the legislation of General Principles, launched at the very beginning of the overall process, certain emphasis is placed on debts. Therefore, China could draw experience from the revision of the Law of Obligation in Switzerland in the formulation of the General Principles of the Civil Code, the Chapter of Debt and the Law of Obligation.