An anonymous survey of 250 UK CISOs and OT security leads finds that the majority of essential and important entities have significant readiness gaps across OT-specific controls, supply chain risk management, and incident reporting capability. 

Two years after NIS2 came into force across the European Union, and with UK equivalents shaping domestic regulatory expectations, the majority of UK organisations classified as essential or important entities have not achieved adequate readiness across the directive’s ten core requirements. That is the finding of a new survey conducted by e2e-assure, published on 28 May 2026, which measured compliance readiness across 250 UK CISOs and OT security leads using a standardised ten-dimension framework. 

 

Where the Gaps Are Widest

The survey assessed readiness across ten dimensions including supply chain risk management, OT-specific security controls, incident reporting capability, board-level governance, and vulnerability handling processes. OT-specific controls produced the lowest readiness scores, with 58% of respondents falling below the defined threshold. Supply chain risk management was the second weakest dimension at 54% below threshold.

These findings are consistent with independent research published in the e2e-assure OT Security Review 2026, based on Censuswide survey data from January 2026 covering 250 cybersecurity decision makers across UK CNI and manufacturing. The OT Security Review found that only 18% of surveyed organisations are fully compliant with NIS2, with 78% not yet meeting compliance requirements. IEC 62443, the primary OT-specific standard, showed even wider gaps: 17% fully compliant and 79% not yet. These figures suggest that for the majority of UK organisations in scope, compliance is a declared priority without a completed roadmap.

Incident reporting capability showed the sharpest variation by sector: energy and water operators scored significantly higher than manufacturing and transport, reflecting the regulatory attention those sectors have historically received from OFGEM and Ofwat.

The Board Governance Gap

Board-level governance scored higher than technical controls overall, but the detail is more nuanced. When respondents were asked whether their board received quarterly cyber risk reporting that specifically addressed OT environments, only 29% confirmed this was the case. The majority reported that board-level cyber reporting either did not distinguish IT from OT risk, or covered cybersecurity only when a specific incident triggered discussion.

NIS2 places explicit accountability on board members and management, including provisions for personal liability in cases of demonstrated negligence. An organisation that cannot evidence regular board-level OT risk oversight is in a weak position to demonstrate proportionate governance to a regulator.

Sector Variation

Water and energy operators reported the highest readiness scores overall, driven by longstanding sector-specific regulatory requirements. Manufacturing reported the lowest aggregate scores, with 67% of manufacturing respondents below threshold on OT-specific controls.

The OT Security Review found that the most common areas receiving formal budget allocation for regulatory programmes are NIS2 (37%), the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill (35%), and the Cyber Assessment Framework (33%). Budget allocation, however, does not equate to compliance achievement. The gap between organisations that have allocated budget to NIS2 and those that have achieved full compliance remains substantial.

Next Steps

e2e-assure provides NIS2 compliance support services to UK essential and important entities, including gap assessments against NIS2 Article 21 technical controls, incident response planning, and OT-specific security control implementation. The survey report, including sector-level scoring and breakdowns by named dimension, is available at e2e-assure.com.

For more information on e2e-assure’s NIS2 compliance support, visit e2e-assure.com.

Key Facts

  • Survey sample: 250 UK CISOs and OT security leads at essential and important entities
  • 10 dimensions measured against standardised readiness thresholds
  • 58% of respondents below threshold on OT-specific security controls
  • 54% below threshold on supply chain risk management
  • Only 29% of respondents receive quarterly board reporting specifically addressing OT risk
  • Manufacturing recorded the lowest aggregate readiness scores across all sectors surveyed
  • OT Security Review (Censuswide/e2e-assure, Jan 2026): 18% fully NIS2 compliant, 78% not yet
  • OT Security Review: IEC 62443 compliance even lower at 17% fully compliant, 79% not yet
  • Energy and water operators scored highest, reflecting established sector-specific regulatory history

About e2e-assure

e2e-assure is a UK-based managed SOC and cybersecurity company specialising in IT/OT security, threat detection and response, and cyber assessment services for critical national infrastructure and industrial operators. Founded by Rob Demain, e2e-assure operates the Cumulo platform, purpose-built for unified IT/OT monitoring. The company serves clients in manufacturing, energy, water, and transport across the United Kingdom.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


After a four-year wait, Euphoria has returned to television, but season 3 is providing a major shake-up to its formula. Not only have four years passed in the real world, but the in-universe tale has moved forward, taking the cast of the Zendaya-led teen drama out of high school and into the trials of young adulthood. As such, the series faces a new challenge of whether it can keep up its momentum with this drastic new status quo.

While it remains to be seen how Euphoria can move past its teen drama roots, it’s an excellent time to dive into the celebrated and controversial series Skins. Let’s see how it handled the test of time, how it outshines Euphoria, and how it fell into similar trappings.

What is Skins?

Skins broke the teen drama mold

Created by Bryan Elsley and Jamie Brittain, Skins is Channel 4’s British drama series that premiered in 2007. Initially, the series first honed in on a group of teens enjoying their youth in the city of Bristol, caught between youthful revolt, partying, and the pressures of adulthood. The show walked a fine line between relatable comedy and serious drama. This combination of genres attracted a following.

Skins aired for seven seasons between 2007 and 2013, running for a final total of 61 episodes. The series was praised by critics and prominent industry voices—including Doctor Who’s Russell T. Davies and Black Mirror’s Charlie Brooker—for breaking the mold of what a teen drama could be. Even over a decade after its final episodes aired, its characters are still fondly remembered, finding new life through a thriving online fandom.


skins


Release Date

2007 – 2013-00-00

Network

E4

Showrunner

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley

Writers

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley



Skins was celebrated as a realistic depiction of teen life

The series was willing to show the highs and lows

Skins is part of a unique generation of teen-focused media released in the mid-2000s and 2010s. The series wasn’t a glossy depiction of youth culture; its cast comprised young people stumbling through life, making mistakes, or intentionally causing trouble. They were allowed to be flawed and even unlikable, which would resonate with the young target demographic at the time, who would find their struggles relatable.

With this clear recognition of what its audience was looking for, Skins became acclaimed for its willingness to dive into taboo and controversial subjects at the time. Alongside several storylines tackling queer themes, the series dared to depict a generation in conflict with those who came before, with the show’s adults either being unintentionally neglectful or outright malicious towards the young cast. As Skins was exploring teens transitioning between youth and adulthood, the show is a coming-of-age story that is willing to show every aspect these changes bring, for better or worse.

Skins spawned several stars

Several actors are now household names

The cast of Skins in a photo. Credit: Warner Home Video

While Euphoria can be credited with being the breakout show for several actors, Skins had no shortage of faces who would dominate both the big screen and television. Seasons 1 and 2’s cast not only featured Nicholas Hoult, Dev Patel, Joe Dempsie, and Hannah Murray long before they would star in highly celebrated projects such as Superman, The Green Knight, and Game of Thrones.

The show also featured small appearances by Get Out’s Daniel Kaluuya, who would pen several episodes for the series. Season 2 would continue to feature future stars in their breakout roles, such as 28 Years Later’s Jack O’Connell as the brash and loud hooligan Cook and The Gentlemen’s Kaya Scodelario, who transformed her season 1 character Effy Stonem into a compelling lead.

When paired with a supporting cast of several talented, established mainstays on British television, it is understandable why Skins provided a perfect chance to give these future stars the perfect breakout roles. Not only were the characters able to tap into the youthful rebelliousness and culture of the time in a way that made it highly relatable to audiences, but the stars behind these characters were able to show their skills against their older costars and prove themselves. As such, it is unsurprising that Skins‘ young leads would go on to bigger projects that would be recognized around the globe.

Skins avoided Euphoria’s production issue

Skins’s major cast shake-ups helped the series continue

The skins show 3. Credit: Warner Home Video

However, with a young cast who would gradually grow out of their roles, Skins was limited in the stories that it could tell while the audiences could still plausibly believe that the actors were the same age as their characters. While finding a cast who could believably play younger characters is hardly a new predicament, it is something that has become more scrutinized as time goes on. Even Euphoria has had to grapple with this issue, with season 3 featuring a time jump of several years to account for its cast outgrowing their high school roles in the gap between each season’s production.

Arguably, out of most teen dramas, Skins found the ideal way to handle this issue. Rather than following a single group of teens across seven seasons, the first six seasons can be divided into three distinct eras with their own unique casts. The final season explored what happened to several fan-favorite characters following their education. Not only did this compromise avoid any potential issues due to the cast’s ages, but it also broadened the scope of the kinds of stories that could be told due to its revolving cast.

Skins wasn’t without its own controversies

A young cast brought several difficulties

That’s not to say that Skins didn’t attract criticism. Due to the young ages of the cast at the time of filming and the situations they were placed in, the series understandably and rightfully received heavy scrutiny of how they were treated, alongside discussions of whether the series was guilty of glorifying unhealthy habits. These critiques weren’t limited to viewers and professional critics either, as several lead actors such as Scodalerio, April Pearson, and Dakota Blue Richards have spoken about their time on set through social media.

While Skins can be celebrated for its willingness to depict a gritty and relatable portrayal of growing up in the early 2000’s, it is important to acknowledge where things could have been handled better, especially as more of its stars open up about their time making the show. It is also important to acknowledge how these revelations can affect the show’s perception, either by those who grew up with the show or newcomers looking in. If you feel uncomfortable by the events depicted onscreen or feel sour towards the show due to the cast’s treatment, it may be best to avoid it.​​​​​​​

Where to stream Skins

The series has a lasting legacy

Effy in Skins. Credit: Channel 4

For better and worse, Skins represents a major moment in British television history. Between casting future stars in their breakout roles and giving audiences an unflinching depiction of teen life, the series is worth revisiting for these aspects. Furthermore, if you are familiar with Euphoria, it is also interesting to go into the series and compare how each show tackles similar themes, not only due to how times have changed between series but also through how a British cultural lens vs. a US lens works.


Furthermore, for US viewers, Skins is currently readily available to stream. The full series is available to Hulu subscribers, as well as those who pay for the Disney+ bundles that feature the service. If your excitement for Euphoria has been dimmed by the lengthy wait between seasons or you are just looking for an interesting show to compare it to, Skins still stands as the best option available.

hulu-poster.jpg

Subscription with ads

Yes, $10/month

Live TV

Yes, various plans available




Source link