When a cyber incident hits, the first question organisations often ask is “who’s responsible?”. However, the more important question is “who is accountable?”.
Security teams may lead the technical response, and external providers may be brought in to help investigate and contain the threat. But when regulators come calling, customers demand answers, or the board reviews what went wrong, accountability sits firmly with leadership.
Modern regulation, evolving threat tactics,and growing business reliance on digital systems have made this unavoidable. Cyber incidents are no longer purely technical failures. They are business crises that require executive decision-making under pressure.
Responsibility and accountability are often used interchangeably, but during a cyber incident they are very different things.
Operational teams are responsible for detecting threats, analysing activity, containing attackers, and restoring systems. They execute the response.
Leadership, however, is accountable for outcomes. That includes the decisions made, the risks accepted, and the way the organisation meets its legal and regulatory obligations.
In practice, accountability means leadership must be able to answer questions such as:
• What business functions were impacted and why?
• Why were certain systems isolated or kept running?
• When did the organisation become aware of the incident?
• Were regulators and customers notified correctly and on time?
• What steps were taken to prevent a repeat?
These are not questions that can be delegated away, even when response activity is outsourced.
Across Europe and the UK, regulation has removed any ambiguity around where accountability sits.
NIS2 places direct responsibility on management bodies to approve cybersecurity risk management measures, oversee their implementation, and ensure they are effective. It also introduces potential personal consequences where organisations fail to meet their obligations.
DORA reinforces this for financial entities,stating clearly that the management body retains ultimate responsibility for ICT risk management. Outsourcing services does not remove that responsibility.
In the UK, the Cyber Governance Code of Practice and NCSC guidance are both aimed squarely at boards and senior executives, emphasising that cyber risk is a governance issue, not just an IT one.
The message across all of this is consistent. You can outsource operations. You cannot outsource accountability.
During an incident, leadership accountability typically centres on four areas.
Executives must make fast, high-impact decisions with incomplete information. This includes balancing containment against operational disruption, prioritising critical services, and deciding how much risk the organisation is willing to accept in the short term.
Leadership must ensure reporting obligations are met, evidence is preserved, and legal privilege is considered. Delayed or inaccurate reporting is one ofthe most common failings identified by regulators after incidents.
Customer, partner, employee, and media communications are leadership responsibilities. Mixed messages or silence can cause as much damage as the incident itself.
Authorising external support, invoking disaster recovery, approving emergency spend, and reallocating internal teamsall require executive ownership.
Security teams provide input, but leadershipowns the calls.
This is where Managed Detection and Responseplays a critical role, not just as a security service, but as an enabler of effective governance.
MDR turns raw alerts into validated incidents with context. Instead ofleadership being flooded with technical noise, they receive clear explanationsof what is happening, what is affected, and how confident the assessment is. This allows faster, better-informed decisions.
Regulators expect organisations to demonstratewhat they knew, when they knew it, and what actions were taken. MDR servicesmaintain detailed timelines, logs, and response records that support regulatoryreporting and post-incident reviews.
A mature MDR programme defines severity thresholds and escalation paths inadvance. Leadership is notified when they need to be, not too late and not forevery low-level alert. This supports calm, controlled decision-making underpressure.
MDR teams experienced in incident response can help translate technicalfindings into plain-language briefings for executives, boards, and crisisteams. This reduces miscommunication and ensures everyone is working from thesame understanding of risk.
Perhaps most importantly, MDR supports leadership accountability long before anincident happens. Tabletop exercises, reporting metrics aligned to business risk, and continuous tuning of detections all help leadership understand their exposure and decision-making responsibilities in advance.
When an incident occurs, it is too late to decide who owns which decisions, who speaks to regulators, or how escalation works. Leadership accountability is judged on preparation as much as response.
MDR does not replace executive responsibility. What it does is give leaders the visibility, evidence, and support they need to exercise that responsibility effectively, under intense time pressure, and with real-world consequences.
For organisations facing increasing regulatory scrutiny and more sophisticated attacks, MDR is no longer just a technical control. It is a critical part of modern cyber governance.
If you want to understand how MDR can supportyour leadership team before, during, and after a cyber incident, speak toIntegrity360 about building an MDR capability aligned to governance,regulation, and business risk.