Every business has one. It’s tucked into a SharePoint folder, last updated six months ago and filled with technical acronyms and vague threat descriptions. It’s the cyber risk register. And despite its importance, it rarely gets read, let alone acted upon.
The result? Missed threats, misallocated budgets and a false sense of security. When the board finally asks for clarity—what’s our exposure, where are we vulnerable, what needs urgent funding—too often, the risk register isn’t fit for purpose.
A UK government study[1] found that while 57% of medium and large businesses have a cyber risk register, many “only discuss cybersecurity irregularly, such as after an incident or as part of wider discussions,” highlighting a gap between documentation and decision-making.
As risk management expert Norman Marks[2] bluntly put it: “I have yet to find one [company] where senior management or a board considered and took into account the information in a risk register when faced with a decision.”
This article breaks down why so many cyber risk registers fall short, what separates an ignored spreadsheet from a strategic asset and how to build a register that gives leadership the clarity and confidence they need to act.
Cyber risk registers are meant to bring clarity. But in practice, they often do the opposite. For many organisations, the register becomes a disconnected document—technically complete, yet practically useless. Here's why.
Most registers are created to tick a compliance box. They follow a template, reference a framework and meet the minimum expectation for an audit. But they don’t reflect how the business operates—or where it’s most exposed.
The risks listed are often generic, copied from outdated guidance or pulled from a template with no direct link to the business's actual environment. The result is a document that’s safe on paper but irrelevant in the boardroom.
As Willis Towers Watson[3] noted in their 2025 Cyber Risk Report, “Too many organisations rely on a high-level cyber risk register with little to no detail, reflecting a box-ticking approach and little to no active engagement.”
When risk descriptions are loaded with acronyms and cyber terminology, they fail to land with senior decision-makers. A CIO or Finance Director doesn’t respond to “phishing simulation test failures” or “SMTP gateway misconfigurations.” They want to know if customer data is at risk, if operations could be disrupted, or if the business could face fines.
Without translation into business impact, the register becomes a technical silo—useful to the IT team but invisible to everyone else.
Threats evolve weekly. Yet many cyber risk registers are reviewed annually—if that. This leaves businesses blind to emerging risks and shifting priorities. A risk logged in Q1 may be irrelevant by Q3, or vice versa. But if the document isn’t reviewed, those shifts are missed.
Static registers give the illusion of control but leave the organisation open to current threats. Norman Marks[4], a leading governance and risk expert, puts it plainly: “It is a static list of risks, updated occasionally ― this is bad risk management.”
A risk without an owner is a risk without a response. Many registers list dozens of threats, but with no clear accountability, mitigation plans, or deadlines. This breeds inertia. When something does go wrong, no one knows who was responsible for reducing the risk—or why nothing was done sooner.
The IANS Research Institute[5] states: “Every risk in the risk register should have an ‘owner,’ a party in the organisation responsible for ensuring the risk is properly addressed. Each should also have a ‘decision-maker,’ who determines what to do about the risk (i.e., accept, reject, transfer, or mitigate).”
Without embedded ownership, the register fails to drive action. It becomes a record of risks, not a tool for managing them.
When done well, a cyber risk register becomes more than an audit artefact. It becomes a living resource that drives decision-making, earns executive trust and reduces real-world exposure. So what does that look like?
The best registers don’t just list threats—they tie them directly to business outcomes. Instead of naming the latest malware variant, they highlight what’s at stake: customer data exposure, operational downtime, regulatory fines or reputational loss.
This shift from “what’s the threat” to “what’s the impact” helps leadership understand the relevance of each risk. It also sets a clear priority: the bigger the business consequence, the higher the urgency.
Effective registers bridge the gap between IT and the boardroom. That means rewording risks so that non-technical stakeholders understand both the issue and its importance.
According to ISACA[6], “Security risk must be communicated using the language of business. That means describing risks in terms of potential revenue losses, operational disruption or regulatory exposure.”
For example:
This isn’t dumbing it down—it’s reframing it to match how the business thinks and operates.
Threats change. So should the register. Business-focused risk registers are reviewed frequently—ideally as part of quarterly governance or security meetings.
New projects, technology changes, emerging threat intelligence, or shifting compliance requirements should all trigger updates. This ensures the register reflects the current environment, not last year’s risks.
Too often, cyber risk registers are built in isolation—created by security teams, buried in technical language and disconnected from the decisions that shape business strategy. To be useful at the executive level, the register must connect directly to how the organisation thinks, operates and prioritises.
Here’s how to build one that does exactly that.
Before any risk is documented, gather the right people in the room. That means more than just IT and cyber. You need representation from operations, finance, legal, compliance, HR—any function that manages sensitive data, delivers services, or faces regulatory oversight.
The UK’s NCSC[7] recommends involving a range of departments to “ensure cyber risks are assessed within the wider context of business risk management and with sufficient input from the relevant teams.”
The goal isn’t to debate threat types. It’s to define what the business truly cannot afford to lose.
Ask:
This exercise surfaces the real-world consequences of IT failures—and helps shift the conversation from “what’s technically vulnerable” to “what the business can’t afford to ignore.”
Tip: Use business scenarios instead of attack types. For example, don’t ask “What’s our ransomware risk?” Instead, ask, “What happens if we can’t access client files for 72 hours?”
Once critical areas are identified, start linking specific cyber risks to them. This step is where many registers fall short—they describe the threat without explaining why it matters.
Take this transformation:
Map each risk to:
This makes every item in the register relevant to operational and board-level priorities. It also helps justify investments in specific controls or technologies when budgets are tight.
A long list of risks helps no one. The real value lies in prioritisation—and that means understanding risk appetite.
This isn’t just about assigning numbers. It’s about context:
Use a simple scoring model:
Risk Score = Likelihood (1–5) × Impact (1–5)
But define Impact in business terms:
Visual tools like heat maps can help boards instantly see where attention is needed. For higher-risk areas, consider adding:
This reinforces urgency without technical overload.
Ownership is where most registers fall apart. If no one owns the risk, nothing happens—and if everyone owns it, no one does.
For each risk:
Example:
Risk: Outdated third-party HR software without MFA
Owner: HR Director
Next Step: Procurement to explore MFA upgrade or vendor replacement
Review Date: 30/04/2025
This structure drives accountability and keeps momentum.
The final step is what makes the register a living document instead of a forgotten file.
Too many businesses treat risk review as an annual task. But threats evolve, projects change, and new vulnerabilities emerge. If the register doesn’t reflect that, it quickly loses value.
Build it into your governance structure:
Also revisit ownership regularly. Personnel changes or shifting responsibilities can leave risks orphaned—especially if mitigation plans stall.
Keeping the register fresh not only strengthens security posture—it shows leadership that risk is being actively managed, not just recorded.
Building a cyber risk register is one thing. Making it effective—understood, used, and trusted across the business—is something else entirely. Many registers fail not because they lack structure, but because of avoidable missteps in mindset, execution, or communication.
Let’s break down the most common pitfalls that undermine cyber risk registers—and how to address them before they compromise your efforts.
It’s easy to mistake existence for effectiveness. Just because a risk register was created during an ISO audit or a compliance initiative doesn’t mean it’s doing its job.
The real question is:
If the answer is no, then the register isn’t integrated—it’s isolated.
In the UK Post Office IT scandal[8], the Horizon system’s risks were formally logged, yet senior leadership failed to act. As one industry commentator put it: “Was maintaining a risk register merely a tick box exercise that nobody really took seriously?”
How to fix it:
Embed the register in your strategic decision-making cycle:
When it becomes part of how the business plans and protects, usage becomes natural.
This is one of the most common objections—and it’s understandable. IT leaders are often stretched thin, juggling outages, user demands, and project backlogs.
But the cost of not updating the register isn’t just administrative—it’s operational. It means flying blind into new threats, leaving outdated risks unresolved, and exposing the business to avoidable harm.
How to fix it:
Time invested here prevents far greater time lost responding to avoidable incidents.
This is true—but it’s also where many risk registers go wrong. When registers read like firewall logs or vulnerability scans, they’re quickly dismissed. But that doesn’t mean leadership is disinterested in cyber risk—it means they want it framed in business terms.
How to fix it:
Once boards understand that cyber risk impacts revenue, operations, and brand reputation, engagement follows.
Security is complex—but clarity is non-negotiable. Registers that are too technical or too vague both end up ignored.
How to fix it:
The goal isn’t simplification—it’s comprehension. If the business doesn’t understand the risk, it can’t prioritise it.
This is perhaps the most dangerous mindset. Just because a breach hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean risk is under control. Many attacks go undetected. Others only emerge when it’s too late—during an audit, legal dispute, or media inquiry.
How to fix it:
Risk is often invisible—until it isn’t. A register that challenges complacency is a register that protects.
As the UK’s 2023 Cyber Breaches Survey[9] found, 32% of businesses that experienced a breach had not tested incident response plans in the last year—suggesting that perceived resilience often doesn’t match operational readiness.
A well-structured cyber risk register does far more than meet audit requirements. When aligned with the business, owned across departments, and updated regularly, it becomes a strategic tool—one that informs decisions, directs investment, and reduces risk in real terms.
Here’s what the right kind of register delivers.
Leaders don’t want every technical detail—but they do want clarity. A good register gives them a focused view of:
This builds confidence in the IT function and supports faster, better-informed decisions. When the board understands the risk, they’re more likely to back the solution.
Cyber budgets are often scrutinised. Without a clear link between investment and impact, getting funding for tools, training, or additional resource is a challenge.
A strong register makes that link obvious:
By showing how risks map to business outcomes, the register justifies action—and accelerates buy-in.
A Gartner[10] survey found that security leaders who successfully tied cyber risk to business outcomes were 40% more likely to gain budget approval from executives.
Registers built for compliance often list risks without meaningful response plans. The good ones go further.
They:
That means risk isn’t just documented—it’s being actively reduced.
When risks are shared across the organisation, security becomes a collective responsibility—not just an IT concern. A well-managed register:
It breaks silos and builds resilience across the business.
Whether it’s ISO 27001, GDPR, or sector-specific frameworks, a working register makes compliance audits smoother and more defensible.
Instead of scrambling to update an outdated spreadsheet before a certification renewal, the business can show:
The risks are real. The consequences are measurable. And the register sitting in a forgotten folder won’t protect the business when it matters most.
As ISACA[11] put it: “The starting point is the risk register… From this, the overall view can be created to help management understand the topics covered by the [security] plan, while always being anchored to the organisation’s objectives.”
A cyber risk register shouldn’t be a static document built for auditors—it should be a core part of how the organisation makes decisions, allocates resources, and prepares for what’s coming. When structured correctly, it is the link between technical risk and business strategy.
It gives the board visibility.
It gives teams accountability.
And it gives leadership the confidence to act before it’s too late.
If your current register isn’t doing that—it’s time to change it.
Sources:
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/cyber-security-breaches-survey-2023
[2] https://normanmarks.wordpress.com/2021/01/03/risk-registers-are-not-effective-risk-management
[3] https://www.wtwco.com/en-GB/Insights/2025/03/cyber-risk-outlook-2025
[4] https://cammsgroup.com/blog/8-red-flags-that-your-risk-management-framework-isnt-working
[5] https://www.iansresearch.com/resources/all-documents/practical-advice-for-managing-cyber-risk
[6] https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/isaca-now-blog/2022/communicating-information-security-risk
[7] https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/board-toolkit/risk-management
[8] https://www.theaccessgroup.com/en-gb/blog/irm-lessons-from-the-post-office-scandal
[9] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/cyber-security-breaches-survey-2023
[10] https://blogs.gartner.com/avivah-litan/2023/02/15/make-the-business-case-for-cybersecurity
[11] https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/isaca-now-blog/2022/communicating-information-security-risk