Energy security and self-sufficiency have always been global concerns, but their urgency has intensified since the Russia–Ukraine war. This geopolitical disruption accelerated the pursuit of sustainable alternatives, positioning green hydrogen as a leading candidate to replace fossil fuels. Labeled “green” because it is produced through water electrolysis without carbon emissions, green hydrogen began gaining international momentum around 2020–2021, especially in the United States, Australia, and China, and by 2023 several developing economies, including India, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Africa, had also entered the field.

Yet, the large-scale transition to green hydrogen depends not only on technological advances but also on robust policies that shape decision-making and create enabling environments. Policies, as structured sets of instruments and actions, are essential to guide such transitions. This raises a central question: to what extent are policy adoptions influenced by technological developments in green hydrogen? Previous research has mainly focused on other sectors such as photovoltaics or e-mobility and largely examined developed economies like Germany and the UK. In contrast, this study seeks to fill the gap by examining how technology dynamics have influenced the adoption of green hydrogen production policies in India between 2020 and 2024.

The research concentrates on production technologies, since they form the basis of the hydrogen value chain and without them downstream applications cannot emerge. The chosen timeframe reflects the post-COVID-19 surge in global interest and the geopolitical pressures of the Russia–Ukraine war. The literature review revealed, however, that the concept of technology dynamics—which refers to patterns of change in innovation, maturity, cost evolution, industrial diffusion, and scaling—remains insufficiently explored in relation to green hydrogen.

The study found that electrolysers continued to dominate the global market, though since 2022 alternative approaches, such as seawater and wastewater electrolysis and the integration of digital technologies into production, have advanced. Geographically, manufacturing has been concentrated in China and Europe, while alkaline electrolysers have emerged as the most cost-effective option. In parallel, India’s policy measures revealed a progression: initially focusing on enabling frameworks, then shifting toward actively supporting electrolyser technologies, and later moving toward more technology-neutral approaches that also encouraged biomass-based hydrogen production. Innovations such as seawater electrolysis and automation were specifically backed by R&D incentives and international collaborations.

An additional strand of the research examined over two thousand newspaper articles to trace stakeholder involvement. The findings suggest that each new policy measure generated feedback from stakeholders, often highlighting concerns about cost, feasibility, and contextual relevance. This feedback sometimes influenced adjustments, reflecting mechanisms described in the literature such as advocacy coalitions, policy iteration, and compulsive policymaking. While these patterns suggest a connection between technological developments and policy design, the reliance on secondary data limited the ability to draw firm causal conclusions, pointing to the need for future research using interviews and other primary sources.

Overall, the study provides valuable insights for policymakers, industry actors, and civil society. It underscores that the success of green hydrogen in India, and in similar developing contexts, relies on the interaction between advancing technologies and responsive policy frameworks. Moreover, it highlights the importance of stakeholder feedback in shaping sustainability transitions and argues that this influence could be enhanced by creating more structured channels of participation and collaborative forums for decision-making.