Green hydrogen is widely positioned as a decarbonization lever for hard-to-abate sectors, but deployment still lags behind policy ambition, which leavs developers, equipment suppliers and potential offtakers in a “watchful waiting” mode. A new peer-reviewed study in Societies (2026) surveyed 236 stakeholders across the European hydrogen value chain to capture how companies and experts rank barriers and select preferred incentives, and how perceptions shift by organization type, role, and exposure to Romania.
The market says: costs first, then rules, then networks
Across the sample, three barriers clearly dominate decision-making. The most decisive constraint is the cost of building projects: high capital costs (CAPEX – the upfront investment to build projects) were placed in the top three barriers by 70.3% of respondents and were ranked as the number one barrier by 41.9%, a strong indication that “bankability” remains the main gatekeeper for green hydrogen investment. Regulatory uncertainty comes next, mentioned by 46.6% of respondents, which points to persistent ambiguity around classification, certification and compliance requirements – exactly the kind of uncertainty that delays final investment decisions and discourages long-term commitments. Close behind, 40.7% cite the lack of infrastructure for storage and transport, highlighting that even where production may be technically feasible, the physical backbone needed to move molecules reliably from producers to offtakers is still missing.
Two additional “commercial reality checks” follow at short distance and complete the picture of why projects struggle to move from plans to execution. Limited market demand, cited by 39.8% of respondents, functions as a proxy for weak offtake certainty and fragile price acceptance in end-use sectors, while high operating costs (OPEX), selected by 36.0%, reflects the current economic gap between green hydrogen and competing alternatives across most applications.
By contrast, several issues that often dominate public debate appear secondary in this dataset, as collected in 2025. Respondents gave far less weight to permitting (5.1%), public acceptance (5.5%), skilled workforce (5.5%), supply chain limitations (7.2%) and grid connection (8.1%), suggesting that the binding constraints today are less about social or administrative friction. This doesn’t mean they are irrelevant, only that, at this stage, stakeholders see economics and investability as the binding constraints.
What would unlock investment
When asked what incentives most influence a company’s decision to invest or do business with green hydrogen, respondents clustered around three instruments:
- Financial subsidies or grants: 27.1% (top enabler)
- Regulatory mandates or standards: 21.8%
- Public policies / high-level strategies: 20.2%
Tax incentives (17.0%) and public–private partnerships (10.7%) follow.
Importantly, the open “Other” responses read like a checklist for market creation: regulatory stability, cross-border recognition of guarantees of origin, long-term contracts, pre-arranged offtakers, willingness to pay, “customers”, plus references to effective carbon pricing and reducing fossil fuel subsidies.
Where perceptions diverge
The study’s practical value is not only the “top three”, but who stresses what. Statistically significant differences emerge for “public acceptance” and “limited market demand” across organizational roles and types, and for “public–private partnerships” among respondents with Romanian market contact.
Market demand is a bigger problem for SMEs and NGOs than for large corporates/public bodies. The simple explanation is that smaller players face a double bind — they are most exposed to uncertain offtake while also least able to carry early-stage CAPEX risk.
On the other hand, public acceptance varies by organizational role (even if it ranks low overall). Actors closer to societal interface (public authorities, consultancies, etc.) tend to treat legitimacy and acceptance as more salient than technology providers do — a useful warning signal for later-stage deployment, and its communication.
Also of high relevance is that stakeholders tend to prioritize one cluster over another. Correlation exposed in the study suggests that respondents often emphasize certain obstacles at the expense of others. For example, higher emphasis on CAPEX is negatively associated with emphasis on regulatory uncertainty, limited market demand, renewable electricity availability, and grid connection. A second insight is that respondents who rate regulatory uncertainty higher are more likely to favor public–private partnerships.
This indicates different “mental models” depending on where stakeholders sit in the value chain and what blocks the projects according to them.
What this study really adds: the policy lesson is actor-sensitive
The headline result is unsurprising: at this early stage, CAPEX de-risking is necessary, but the study also sends a clear warning: financing alone will not be sufficient without regulatory certainty and infrastructure planning. In practice, various incentives should be put at work together: financial support with credible, enforceable standards, and demand-side tools (like contracts for difference, offtake guarantees, quotas/mandates where appropriate).
The headline numbers are clear, but the strategic lesson is sharper: green hydrogen policy succeeds when it is actor-sensitive — tailored to how different organizations and social groups actually experience risk, not how the market is described in national strategies. By showing that barriers and incentives are not only structural, but also shaped by individual and organizational characteristics, this study highlights conceptually that green hydrogen policies must consider diverse business perspectives to be successful.
The study was authored by Elena Ocenic (corresponding author) and Mihai Sandu, affiliated with the Faculty of Business Administration in Foreign Languages / Doctoral School of Business Administration II at the Bucharest University of Economic Studies (ASE), Romania. It was published on February 21 as an Article in Societies (2026, volume 16, article 73), edited by Chun Kai Leung.