A peculiar tension plays out in boardrooms across every sector: cybersecurity represents one of the most critical investments an organisation can make, yet it delivers none of the excitement that typically drives corporate spending decisions. This paradox has become a defining challenge for modern corporate governance, particularly as cyber threats continue to escalate in sophistication and frequency.

When a company invests in product development, marketing infrastructure or operational technology, stakeholders can point to tangible outcomes — new features customers will value, expanded market reach, or efficiency gains that boost the bottom line. These investments generate enthusiasm amongst executive teams and shareholders alike because they promise growth, competitive advantage, and visible returns. Cybersecurity, by contrast, promises only that things will continue to function as they currently do. There are no new capabilities to demonstrate, no flashy innovations for the next AGM, no features that will delight customers or differentiate the organisation from its competitors.

This creates what might be termed the “invisible protection paradox.” The better an organisation’s cybersecurity programme performs, the less visible its value becomes. A successful Chief Information Security Officer is one whose organisation experiences no breaches, no ransomware attacks, no data exfiltration — events that, by their very absence, leave no trace in the corporate narrative. Attempting to justify why millions of pounds spent on endpoint detection and response systems, security operations centres, penetration testing, and threat intelligence was worthwhile when “nothing happened” presents a unique communications challenge to CISOs and security-conscious boards everywhere.

Yet this spending has become utterly non-negotiable, and the reason is straightforward: the asymmetric nature of cyber risk means that whilst prevention is expensive, remediation is catastrophic. A single significant breach can obliterate years of accumulated profit, trigger regulatory penalties under frameworks such as the UK GDPR that dwarf security budgets, and inflict reputational damage that can require a decade or more to repair. According to IBM’s 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report, the average global cost of a data breach reached $4.44 million (approximately £3.25 million), with costs in heavily regulated industries often substantially higher. However, these figures barely capture the full impact — customer trust and brand equity, once compromised, may never fully recover.

The reputational consequences deserve particular emphasis. Research from the Ponemon Institute has demonstrated that organisations suffering publicised data breaches experience long-term share price underperformance, customer attrition rates that can exceed 30%, and lasting damage to brand perception. In competitive markets, this represents an existential threat that no amount of subsequent investment can fully remediate.

This reality explains why cybersecurity has evolved from an IT concern to an essential boardroom agenda item. Company directors and senior executives increasingly recognise that cyber risk is enterprise risk, sitting alongside financial oversight, strategic planning, and regulatory compliance. The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre emphasises that cyber resilience is a board-level responsibility, not merely a technical matter to be delegated to IT departments.

Furthermore, regulatory frameworks have codified this expectation. The UK GDPR imposes substantial fines for inadequate data protection—up to 4% of global annual turnover or £17.5 million, whichever is greater. The Network and Information Systems Regulations similarly mandate that operators of essential services implement appropriate security measures. Directors can face personal liability for governance failures in this domain.

The dichotomy then is clear: organisations must enthusiastically fund initiatives that provide no competitive advantage in their success, only protection from catastrophic failure. It represents insurance implemented rather than purchased, infrastructure hoped to prove redundant, and expertise that ideally never faces its ultimate test. Yet in today’s hyperconnected economy, viewing cybersecurity as discretionary spending is analogous to treating structural integrity as optional in building construction.

The organisations that navigate this paradox most successfully are those that reframe the narrative—viewing robust security not as a cost centre but as the essential foundation that makes all other innovation, growth, and value creation possible.

Subscribe

Register if you want to learn about cybersecurity and advanced tech.

You can unsubscribe with one click, and we'll never share your email address.

Don’t fill this out if you're human:

Fancy reading something else - what takes your fancy?