The phrase "aggressive governance" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to describe a style of governance that is assertive, forceful, or interventionist in nature.
Example: "The new policies reflect an aggressive governance approach aimed at tackling corruption and inefficiency in the public sector."
Alternatives: "assertive governance" or "forceful governance".
This article spells out the conditions under which boards need to change their level of involvement in IT decisions, explaining how members can recognize their firms' IT risks and decide whether they should pursue more aggressive IT governance.
While many observers expected a quick dissolution and snap election, Stephen Harper's minority government prevailed through nearly three years of quite aggressive centre-right governance.
These factors are used to develop "Aggressive Accounting and Governance Risk" (AGR) numbers, the final composite by which organizations are scored.
The companies listed here have the strongest AGRs—"Aggressive Accounting and Governance Risk"—the composite scores by which organizations are judged.
Audit Integrity is used by investment managers, accounting firms, insurance companies and others to better manage risk and avoid companies identified as having aggressive accounting and corporate governance practices.
However, "aggressive accounting" and bad corporate governance had resulted in $382m in accounting errors between 1999 and 2002.
Internal knowledge network characteristics are shown to vary by stance, with more aggressive stances linked to knowledge governance supportive of the entrepreneurship process.
They've become more aggressive in making the case that governance is hard and you've got to know how things fit together.
During the last two years, this fight has taken a more aggressive turn, with the US government, American companies and their close allies pitted against those who demand more international and multilateral governance.
Drawing from political theory and political science, this Article develops a theory of institutional distortion and provides a justification for aggressive judicial review of questions of democratic governance.
