An important controversy in the literature on comparative corporate governance concerns the role played by the transfer of law and regulations in the process of improving corporate governance. This paper claims this controversy is the consequence of the view of legal transplants assumed. Drawing on legal studies it is argued that transferred regulations could either be socially easy or socially relevant. Not both as standard theories of comparative corporate governance would claim. A model for understanding legal transplants in corporate governance is developed and empirically exemplified by a case based on the introduction of the Swedish corporate governance code, proving a multitude of possible outcomes in relation to the transplant of corporate governance regulations. Comparative corporate governance research is advised to consider a more nuanced understanding of legal transplants.