Only 27 percent of UK firms have a board member explicitly responsible for cyber security, down from 38 percent in 2021. That decline is happening at exactly the wrong time and it helps explain why many organisations remain dangerously exposed. [Gov.uk]
Cyber security is no longer a technology problem. In 2026, it is a core business risk that sits alongside financial resilience, regulatory compliance and operational continuity. Boards that still treat cyber as a quarterly update from IT are exposing their organisations to unnecessary disruption, regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage.
The reality is blunt. Attacks are faster, quieter and more targeted. Regulators expect demonstrable control, not good intentions. Customers and partners assume you can protect their data by default. Against that backdrop, the role of the board is not to understand every technical detail, but to ask the right questions and hold management accountable for outcomes.
Here are the 10 questions boards should be asking about cyber in 2026 and why each one matters.
If cyber risk is not explicitly tied to business impact, it is being managed in a vacuum. Boards should insist on clarity around which threats could realistically disrupt revenue, operations, safety or regulatory standing.
This means moving beyond generic risk registers and asking management to articulate scenarios. What happens if customer systems go offline for 48 hours? What if sensitive data is leaked? What if ransomware halts production or service delivery?
In 2026, mature organisations express cyber risk in business terms such as financial exposure, operational downtime and regulatory consequences. If leadership cannot do that, cyber is not being governed properly.
Assuming a breach is no longer pessimistic, it is realistic. The real differentiator is speed of detection. Boards should be asking how long it would take to identify a serious incident and whether that is measured and tested.
Many organisations still rely on limited monitoring during business hours or fragmented alerting tools. That creates blind spots attackers actively exploit. In contrast, effective organisations operate continuous monitoring with clear escalation paths and defined response ownership.
If leadership cannot confidently answer how incidents are detected, who sees them and how quickly action is taken, that is a red flag.
Incident response plans that sit on a shelf are useless. Boards should challenge whether response plans are current, rehearsed and understood beyond the IT team.
In a serious incident, decisions are required quickly around containment, communications, legal advice and regulatory notification. Confusion at this stage amplifies damage.
The board should know who leads a cyber incident, how executives are briefed and when external stakeholders are informed. Regular tabletop exercises involving senior leadership are now a baseline expectation, not a nice-to-have.
Regulatory scrutiny around cyber resilience continues to increase. Whether driven by data protection, sector-specific regulation or operational resilience frameworks, regulators now expect evidence of ongoing control and improvement.
Boards should ask how compliance is being maintained as the threat landscape changes. Are controls reviewed regularly? Are audit findings addressed promptly? Is there clear accountability for remediation?
In 2026, regulators are less tolerant of organisations that claim compliance on paper while failing in practice. Boards must ensure cyber governance is proactive, not reactive.
Supply chain risk is one of the most underestimated cyber threats. Attackers increasingly target smaller or less mature suppliers to gain access to larger organisations.
Boards should ask how third-party risk is assessed, monitored and enforced. Is security considered during procurement? Are critical suppliers reviewed regularly? Do contracts include clear security obligations?
If the answer relies solely on questionnaires completed once a year, that is not enough. Effective organisations focus on continuous assessment and prioritise suppliers based on business criticality.
Technology alone does not stop breaches. Human behaviour remains a primary attack vector, particularly through phishing, credential theft and social engineering.
Boards should ask how staff are enabled to act as a line of defence rather than a point of failure. That includes realistic training, regular simulations and a culture that encourages reporting mistakes early without fear.
In 2026, leading organisations measure behaviour change, not just training completion. If success is defined by attendance rather than outcomes, the programme is likely ineffective.
Cyber budgets continue to grow, but boards increasingly question return on investment. This is a healthy challenge.
Boards should ask what outcomes cyber investment is delivering. Is risk reducing year on year? Are response times improving? Are incidents becoming less severe?
If leadership can only talk about tools deployed rather than results achieved, value is not being clearly demonstrated. Effective cyber programmes align spend to risk reduction and report against measurable indicators.
Prevention will never be perfect. Resilience is about maintaining critical operations even when controls fail.
Boards should ask how quickly systems can be restored, whether backups are protected and tested and which services are prioritised during recovery. They should also understand dependencies that could delay recovery, such as third-party systems or specialist skills.
In 2026, resilience is a board-level concern because downtime translates directly into lost revenue and damaged trust.
Cyber maturity is not static. Boards should expect a clear roadmap that reflects business change, threat evolution and regulatory pressure.
This roadmap should prioritise actions that reduce the most risk, not just those that are easiest to deliver. It should also include clear ownership, timelines and success measures.
If cyber strategy is disconnected from business strategy, it will always lag behind reality.
Finally, boards should consider whether they are receiving an objective view of cyber risk. Independent assurance, whether through internal audit, external assessments or managed security partners, helps validate assumptions and identify blind spots.
Relying solely on self-reporting increases the risk of overconfidence. Independent insight supports better decision-making and stronger governance.
Cyber is no longer about avoiding headlines. It is about protecting value, enabling growth and meeting the expectations of regulators, customers and partners.
Boards do not need to become cyber experts. They do need to ask sharper questions, demand clearer answers and hold leadership accountable for outcomes rather than activity.
The organisations that will perform best in 2026 are those where cyber is treated as a core business discipline, owned at the top and executed with clarity and intent.
If the board is asking the right questions, the business is already in a stronger position.
If your board cannot answer these questions with confidence, the issue is not awareness, it is governance.
AssureMAP gives boards and executives a clear, business-led view of cyber risk, aligned to regulatory expectations and organisational priorities. It translates technical exposure into commercial impact, defines what good looks like for your organisation and sets out a pragmatic, Microsoft-aligned roadmap to close the gaps.
It is designed to support informed board decisions, not generate more noise.
If you want clarity on where your cyber risk really sits and what to do next, AssureMAP is the place to start.