## 4 Findings and Results
### Reflection on the Proposed STS Cybersecurity Challenges Model  
As shown in Figure 3, this study has extended and developed an STS cybersecurity framework for identified cybersecurity challenges that emerged amidst the major crisis in the HERS initially proposed by [28; 55] and adopted by multiple authors in the context of their research work [27; 56]. The framework is based on an initial schema by [PERSON] [57]. [PERSON] states that there is an interrelatedness between system components and a need for joint consideration. The current study extended the framework through a mixture of exploratory research in the field of cybersecurity and major crises and classified the identified cybersecurity challenges by five organizational systems using ten interrelated elements, embedding structural and human, technology, work, internal, external, national, global, legal, regulatory, and political organizational factors. The core idea of the interrelatedness of these systems was adopted from traditional STS theory versions proposed by [55; 57; 58]. The framework was adopted for the current study, as the objective and research question of this study align with the framework. The objective is to classify sociotechnical cybersecurity challenges that emerged amidst the major crises in the HERS. The proposed classification of identified cybersecurity challenges is novel in nature. The classification has been performed after careful exploration of identified cybersecurity challenges that emerged in the HERS by conducting interviews with cybersecurity experts and senior management. All five subsystems are deeply interconnected. For example, a lack of awareness within the social subsystem can significantly exacerbate technical vulnerabilities, such as phishing attacks or scams. Similarly, weaknesses in the technical subsystem can ripple through to the economic and environmental subsystems, resulting in widespread disruptions. Additionally, the political subsystem plays a pivotal role by driving the implementation of cybersecurity tools through policies and influencing economic resource allocation and awareness within the social subsystem. Economic limitations, in turn, often result in deficiencies within the technical subsystem, such as outdated technologies and inadequate tools. Furthermore, external environmental factors, such as the rise of remote work, pose challenges for the social subsystem by influencing user behavior in less secure settings. Secondly, the literature also recommends extending and applying STS thinking to major societal and organizational challenges, including cybersecurity, resilience, and sustainability [27]. The current study addressed this gap and not only applied the concept of STS to cybersecurity challenges but also extended the framework by adding and showing the interrelatedness of other organizational systems, particularly political, economic, and environmental subsystems that were not discussed before in the STS cybersecurity literature. Thirdly, the literature shows that multiple studies use the STS theory by considering a cybersecurity perspective in the recent crisis [37; 59; 60]. However, the research studies have different units of analysis, industry focus, and objectives from the current study findings as shown in Table 5.  
Fourth, the framework proposed in the STS cybersecurity literature fails to report sociotechnical cybersecurity challenges in the context of subsystems other than the social and technical areas. Yet, the current study is one of the initial research studies to extend and report political, economic, and environmental classifications of cybersecurity challenges in addition to the social and technical subsystems that emerged exclusively in the HERS amidst the recent major crisis. Fifth, this study found an interrelationship between the social, technical, political, economic, and environmental subsystems to provide a holistic classification of all identified cybersecurity challenges amidst the major crisis in the HERS.