Does the term 'corporate governance' need a spring clean?

Have you noticed how 'corporate governance' has pervaded the modern lexicon? The term is used in all manner of contexts nowadays. Some are appropriate and some less so. I wrote about this last year, off the back on a comment made by Rob Campbell. Here's a couple of fresh examples that I've heard used in the last sixty days:

• ​That "more women are needed in governance". The speaker probably meant more women are needed on boards, to govern. The subtlety? Women are people and boards are structures, whereas corporate governance is a mechanism through which and by which boards act. I doubt more women are needed within the mechanism! Rather, more women are needed on the board, to activate the mechanism more effectively, in pursuit of desired performance objectives.
• "We'll get governance to look at that", and the variant "That will need governance approval". The two different executives (same forum, I was the facilitator) meant that the matters on the table needed to go to the board for consideration. 

Both of these examples might sound a little contrived, but they are not. All three phrases were spoken, spontaneously and in my hearing, by capable and well-intentioned people. The people in the room knew what was meant, I think. However, these three vignettes set me thinking. Is our usage of the term 'corporate governance' starting to change—away from the original intention (describe the functioning of the polity, i.e., the board of directors) to something different, or have we become somewhat lazy in our usage? I'd be interested in your views on this one!