It wasn’t until we ran a simulated phishing campaign at a mid-sized industrial machinery firm that I saw the real impact of fragmented cybersecurity practices. The results weren’t just surprising—they were sobering. Almost 30% of employees clicked the malicious link, and worse, 7% entered credentials. The company had invested in firewalls and antivirus software, but the weakest link was clear: people and process, not just technology. With the NIS2 directive now tightening expectations for cybersecurity across critical sectors, the manufacturing industry has no choice but to rethink its approach to digital resilience.
This guide breaks down how manufacturers can realistically meet NIS2 compliance requirements without disrupting operations. We’ll cover regulatory expectations, common pitfalls, and hands-on strategies, including how to prioritize efforts in line with risk exposure.
Understanding what NIS2 means for manufacturers
Unlike its predecessor, NIS2 brings sharper teeth to the enforcement of cybersecurity regulations across the EU. It covers a broader range of sectors, including manufacturing, and introduces stricter rules around risk management, incident reporting, business continuity, and supply chain security. More importantly, it increases penalties for non-compliance, aligning them more closely with data protection fines under the GDPR.
Manufacturers must recognize that NIS2 compliance isn’t just a matter of IT hygiene. It involves aligning operational processes, third-party contracts, and incident response capabilities with clear risk-based controls. This is especially challenging in environments that rely on legacy OT (operational technology), which often lacks basic security controls or visibility.
To illustrate the key pillars of NIS2 compliance for manufacturers, here’s a breakdown of focus areas:
Core NIS2 compliance focus areas for manufacturers
| Compliance domain | Key requirements | Typical manufacturing challenges |
| Risk management | Security policies, technical and organizational measures | Fragmented responsibility between IT and OT teams |
| Incident handling | 24h notification, response plans, root cause analysis | Lack of rehearsed, cross-functional incident workflows |
| Business continuity | Recovery plans, crisis management, backups | OT systems not designed for quick recovery |
| Supply chain security | Vendor risk assessment, contractual controls | Complex, opaque supply chains with minimal oversight |
| Governance & accountability | CISO role, board-level oversight, training | Cybersecurity often treated as a secondary function |
Each of these areas demands more than technical controls. They require leadership commitment, cross-departmental coordination, and a culture that prioritizes cyber risk as a business risk.
Bridging the IT-OT security gap
In most manufacturing environments, IT systems run alongside aging OT systems that control production lines, robotic arms, or chemical processes. These OT systems were designed for uptime, not security. Integrating them into a unified risk management framework is one of the trickiest parts of NIS2 readiness.
We recently worked with a steel manufacturer that had five different SCADA systems, none of which could be patched without taking down production. Their solution was to isolate OT networks and build custom detection rules that fed into a centralized SOC (security operations center). It wasn’t easy, but it avoided costly downtime while still elevating visibility and response capabilities.
This kind of hybrid environment needs a tailored approach, as illustrated below:
IT vs OT security integration challenges and solutions
| Security challenge | IT systems | OT systems | Integration approach |
| Patch management | Frequent, scheduled updates | Rare, often requires shutdown | Virtual patching, network segmentation |
| Access control | Role-based access, MFA | Shared credentials, minimal logging | Jump servers, dedicated OT IAM systems |
| Monitoring and detection | Endpoint detection, SIEM | Minimal telemetry, proprietary logs | Passive network monitoring, anomaly detection |
| Incident response | Playbooks, automated workflows | Ad-hoc, manual recovery | Joint IR exercises, OT-aware incident procedures |
Manufacturers need to develop hybrid strategies that reflect the operational constraints of OT while aligning with NIS2’s security expectations. Investing in passive monitoring, segmented networks, and OT-specific training for SOC analysts can bridge the gap without halting production.
From paper policies to practical preparedness
One of the biggest compliance myths is that documentation equals security. We’ve seen firms with beautifully written risk policies who still can’t detect an intrusion or respond effectively. NIS2 requires a shift from theoretical controls to operational resilience.
Start with regular threat simulations that involve IT, OT, and executive teams. Not only do these exercises highlight gaps in coordination, but they also build muscle memory for crisis response. Likewise, vendor risk assessments should move beyond checkbox surveys. Instead, manufacturers should conduct active testing, such as penetration tests or tabletop scenarios, with their key suppliers.
Consider this example of policy versus practice:
Gap analysis between written policies and operational reality
| Policy area | Common documentation claims | Real-world observations | Recommended actions |
| Incident response plan | “All incidents will be responded to within 2 hours” | No clear contact list, delays in escalation | Develop on-call roster, conduct quarterly IR drills |
| Vendor risk management | “Third parties undergo annual reviews” | Infrequent reviews, poor contract enforcement | Tie cybersecurity SLAs to contracts, verify controls |
| Business continuity | “Backups are tested monthly” | Backups exist but testing is irregular or manual | Automate backup verification and recovery testing |
| Security awareness training | “Annual training provided to all staff” | One-size-fits-all e-learning modules | Tailor training by role, simulate attacks quarterly |
Real preparedness means embedding security into the operational tempo of the business. It’s about living the policy, not just writing it.
Aligning compliance efforts with strategic value
Compliance for its own sake rarely motivates action. But when linked to broader business goals—like operational uptime, supply chain reliability, or brand trust—NIS2 compliance becomes an enabler, not a checkbox.
One high-performing automotive parts supplier we engaged with built their compliance roadmap around customer expectations. Their largest OEM client demanded evidence of cyber resilience, so they aligned their NIS2 program with the client’s requirements. This strategic alignment not only improved audit readiness but became a differentiator in contract renewals.
Embedding compliance into strategic planning looks something like this:
Strategic alignment of NIS2 compliance in manufacturing
| Business driver | Compliance opportunity | Impact |
| Customer trust | Demonstrate resilience via certifications | Increased customer retention and preferred supplier status |
| Supply chain continuity | Secure third-party access, ensure resilience | Reduced production downtime due to partner breaches |
| Operational efficiency | Streamline incident response and patch cycles | Faster recovery, fewer disruptions |
| Regulatory risk management | Avoid penalties and reputational damage | Improved board-level visibility, lower legal exposure |
When compliance is positioned as a strategic asset, it garners executive support and sustainable funding.
Building resilience one layer at a time
NIS2 isn’t just a regulatory burden—it’s a wake-up call. For the manufacturing sector, it offers a framework to elevate cybersecurity from a siloed IT function to a business-critical priority. But achieving compliance isn’t about perfection. It’s about progress, iteration, and embedding security into the rhythm of operations.
Manufacturers that start by mapping their current posture, engaging cross-functional teams, and applying controls that work in real-world conditions will be far ahead of the curve. And with enforcement deadlines fast approaching, the time to act is now.
