Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
12/06/2026 12:52 am
TL;DR: 41% of enterprises miss access review deadlines, while manual spreadsheet-based processes still create fragmented visibility, slow remediation, and audit friction, according to Zluri’s survey of 215 IT, GRC, and security leaders. The finding shows access reviews remain a governance bottleneck across human IAM, NHI oversight, and lifecycle controls.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Security & Compliance 41% of Enterprises Miss Access Reviews Deadlines, According to Our Research
By the numbers:
- 41% of enterprises miss access review deadlines.
- We recently did a survey in partnership with Censuswide, asking 215 leaders from big, mid-size US companies, with 500-5000 employees, about access reviews.
- 91.6% of secrets remain valid five days after the targeted organisation is notified, showing a critical gap in remediation procedures.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations stop access reviews from becoming a spreadsheet exercise?
A: Use a controlled workflow that pulls entitlement data from the source system, routes decisions to named owners, and records revocation status in the same place.
Q: Why do access reviews still fail in mature IAM programmes?
A: They fail when the programme treats review completion as the objective instead of access correction.
Q: What breaks when access reviews are not tied to lifecycle events?
A: Entitlements drift between review cycles because people change roles, leave teams, or exit the organisation before the next scheduled review.
Practitioner guidance
- Standardise access review ownership Assign a clear business owner and technical reviewer for each application or entitlement set, then record who must approve, who can revoke, and who confirms closure.
- Tie reviews to lifecycle events Trigger reviews when employees change roles, leave the company, or when third-party relationships change, so entitlement drift is caught at the point it is created.
- Track revocation to closure Measure whether each revoked entitlement was actually removed in the source application and whether evidence was captured for audit.
What's in the full report
Zluri's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Survey methodology and respondent breakdown from 215 leaders across US mid-size and enterprise organisations
- The whitepaper's breakdown of who owns access reviews across IT, GRC, security, and business teams
- The specific tools and workflows respondents use today, including where manual intervention still dominates
- Zluri's discussion of audit reporting pain points and the spreadsheet formats auditors struggle to review
👉 Read Zluri's survey on access review challenges and compliance gaps →
Access reviews are missing deadlines - what should IAM teams change?
Explore further
12/06/2026 10:23 am
Access reviews fail when they are treated as evidence collection instead of entitlement control. The article shows how organisations can recognise the compliance obligation and still miss deadlines because the workflow is manual and fragmented. That means the real control gap is not awareness, but the inability to turn review outcomes into enforced access changes before the next audit cycle. Practitioners should treat access reviews as a control plane, not a document exercise.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 91.6% of secrets remain valid five days after the targeted organisation is notified, showing a critical gap in remediation procedures, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which is why review programmes often miss non-human access hidden outside the main IAM stack.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when access review findings are not remediated?
A: Accountability sits with the business owner for the access decision, the system owner for execution, and the governance function for evidence and escalation. If no one is responsible for closure, the review becomes documentation only. Frameworks such as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 support that accountability chain.
👉 Read our full editorial: Access review deadlines are slipping in enterprise identity governance
