Abstract
This analysis examines how geopolitical disruptions alter the configuration, flow, and management of global energy supply chains, and how hydrogen is emerging as a strategic enabler of greater energy resilience. Drawing on peer-reviewed academic literature and major international policy reports, three principal mitigation pathways are explored: (1) supply chain re-design through regionalization, back-shoring, and reduced fossil fuel dependency; (2) deployment of emerging digital and process technologies; and (3) the development of renewable energy-based secure energy systems with hydrogen as a central pillar. The blog concludes with a focused appraisal of the United Kingdom's position within this transition, identifying both areas of genuine strength and critical vulnerabilities that must be addressed if the country is to fulfil its hydrogen ambitions.
1. Introduction: A World of Compounding Disruptions
The global energy system is under unprecedented stress. Since 2020, the combined shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine war, Middle East conflicts, and accelerating climate-related extreme weather events have exposed the structural fragility of fossil fuel-dependent supply chains in ways that policymakers, industry actors, and researchers had long warned about but rarely seen tested so simultaneously and severely. Energy supply chains, which connect resource extraction, production, transportation, and distribution across dozens of national jurisdictions, are particularly exposed to geopolitical volatility (Adeyinka et al., 2022).
❓The central question underpinning this analysis is: How do geopolitical disruptions affect the configuration, flow, and management of global energy supply chains, and how can hydrogen help address these challenges, including in the specific context of the United Kingdom 🇬🇧?
This question matters because energy is not simply a commodity. It is the sinew of economic activity, national security, and social welfare. When energy supply chains break down, the consequences ripple across food systems, manufacturing, transportation, and financial markets (Sarwar et al., 2025). The search for durable answers is urgent, and hydrogen is increasingly positioned as a pivotal part of that answer.
2. Understanding Geopolitical Disruptions in Energy Supply Chains
2.1 Defining the Disruption Landscape
Geopolitical disruptions refer to events originating from political, military, diplomatic, or trade conflicts between states or blocs that alter the normal functioning of cross-border supply networks. In the energy context, these include trade sanctions, export restrictions, maritime blockades, armed conflicts near infrastructure corridors, and the weaponisation of energy resources as instruments of statecraft (Van de Graaf et al., 2020).
The research field examining these disruptions has matured considerably over the past decade. Early scholarship focused primarily on oil price shocks and OPEC behaviour, but contemporary scholarship has broadened its scope to capture the systemic interdependence between energy markets, supply chains, and broader geopolitical dynamics. A major finding emerging from this body of work is that supply chain disruptions and energy insecurity are causally linked: disruptions in global supply chains, driven by war, global recession, and pandemics, significantly impact energy security, and conversely, energy insecurity cascades back through supply chains by raising input costs and creating logistical bottlenecks (Khan et al., 2025).
Sufi et al. (2025), drawing on over 1.8 million news articles across 705 global portals, found that energy and resource disruptions accounted for 22% of all global supply chain disruption events, the largest single category, with average cross-domain interdependency correlation values exceeding 0.7. This quantitative framing confirms what qualitative analysts have long argued: energy supply chains are not isolated systems; they are deeply entangled with logistics, manufacturing, trade, and agricultural systems in ways that make a disruption in one domain rapidly transmissible across others.
2.2 The Russia-Ukraine War as a Watershed Moment
No single event in recent history has clarified the vulnerability of fossil fuel-based energy supply chains more vividly than Russia's large-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Europe's dependence on Russian pipeline gas, which supplied approximately 40% of the EU's total gas consumption at the eve of the war, was transformed almost overnight from an economic convenience into an acute security liability (Zlatea et al., 2024).
Sarwar et al. (2025), in a systematic review, identified five major impact domains from the conflict: food security disruptions, energy market volatility, critical material shortages, transportation bottlenecks, and financial market contagion. Their findings confirm that the war triggered permanent shifts in global supply chain configurations, not merely temporary adjustments, with developing economies bearing disproportionately asymmetric costs.
The interconnectedness between supply chain disruptions, the energy crisis, and oil market volatility generated measurable impacts on economic resilience in multiple countries, as Yang et al. (2025) demonstrated through panel econometric modelling across a broad cross-section of economies. Their work reinforces the case that energy supply chain vulnerability is not a niche concern for energy specialists alone; it is a first-order macroeconomic risk.
2.3 Geopolitical Risk as a Systemic Supply Chain Factor
Beyond the Russia-Ukraine conflict, geopolitical risk has become a persistent and growing systemic variable in supply chain decision-making. Chang et al. (2025) show empirically that elevated geopolitical risk levels are associated with reduced supply chain resilience, higher inventory holding costs, and increased sourcing diversification activity among multinational firms. Meanwhile, Cheng et al. (2023), using quantile-quantile regression and Granger causality analysis covering nearly two decades of data, demonstrate that geopolitical events, alongside energy price volatility and climate policy uncertainty, are among the strongest predictors of supply chain disruption at the global level.
The IEA's World Energy Outlook 2024 reinforces these findings in its policy-relevant framing, noting that around 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies flow through the Strait of Hormuz alone, and that the potential for near-term disruption to oil and gas supply remains high due to ongoing conflicts in the Middle East (IEA, 2024b). This concentration of critical chokepoints in geopolitically unstable regions is precisely what makes the case for energy system diversification so compelling.
3. Three Pillars of Mitigation
The literature converges on three principal categories of strategic response to geopolitical disruptions in energy supply chains. These are not mutually exclusive; the most resilient systems will deploy all three simultaneously.
3.1 Pillar One: Supply Chain Re-Design Through Regionalization, Back-Shoring, and Reduced Fossil Fuel Dependency
The most structurally significant response is reconfiguring energy supply chain topology. Globalised supply chains, optimised for efficiency and cost minimisation under stable geopolitical conditions, have proven highly vulnerable to concentrated single-source dependencies. In response, policymakers and firms are increasingly pursuing reshoring (returning production domestically), nearshoring (relocating to nearby countries), and friendshoring (prioritising trusted allies) to strengthen resilience.
Fernández-Miguel et al. (2022), examining Italy’s ceramic sector during the Ukrainian clay supply crisis, show that nearshoring and reshoring can simultaneously reduce supply risk and transport-related carbon emissions, creating synergies between resilience and sustainability. Likewise, Kazançoğlu et al. (2023) find that reshoring is often the most resilient outsourcing strategy under prolonged geopolitical uncertainty.
The OECD (2023) adds important nuance, showing that supplier diversification significantly protects domestic production from country-specific shocks, whereas partial onshoring alone provides only limited additional benefits. The OECD further argues that technological innovation reducing foreign energy dependence, particularly substituting renewable energy for imported fossil fuels, can generate resilience benefits comparable to diversification strategies. This strengthens the economic case for clean energy transitions beyond climate concerns: decarbonisation also functions as supply chain risk management.
This logic applies directly to fossil fuel dependence. Supply chains reliant on Russian gas, Middle Eastern oil, or other geopolitically concentrated energy sources face not only market volatility but strategic vulnerability. Transitioning toward domestically producible renewable energy vectors, including green hydrogen, offers the most comprehensive form of resilience by eliminating dependency at its source rather than merely mitigating its effects.
3.2 Pillar Two: Deploying Emerging Technologies
The second pillar involves deploying digital technologies to improve supply chain visibility, predictability, and responsiveness. Adeyinka et al. (2022) identify AI, blockchain, and the Internet of Things (IoT) as key enablers of resilience through real-time tracking, predictive maintenance, and faster decision-making during disruptions.
Kolapo (2024) similarly highlights the role of data analytics, digital twins, and AI-powered forecasting in strengthening energy security while supporting decarbonisation. The study emphasises that adaptive, data-enabled infrastructures are essential for managing supply-demand uncertainty under geopolitical tensions and extreme weather conditions.
These technologies are increasingly strategic rather than merely operational. In volatile geopolitical contexts, the ability to reroute supplies, identify alternative suppliers, forecast demand, and verify energy provenance has become critical. For hydrogen supply chains, digital systems will be particularly important for validating green credentials across international markets, especially under emerging frameworks such as the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Hancock et al., 2021).
Barbosa-Póvoa et al. (2023) further argue that the hydrogen economy requires resilience models that combine operational robustness with adaptive recovery capacity, an area where digital technologies can play a central role.
3.3 Pillar Three: Renewable Energy-Based Secure Energy Systems, with Hydrogen as Key Enabler
The third and most transformative pillar is the transition toward renewable energy systems, with green hydrogen playing a key role as both an energy carrier and storage medium that can overcome the intermittency of wind and solar power. Green hydrogen is particularly important because it can decarbonise hard-to-electrify sectors such as heavy industry, shipping, aviation, and long-distance freight, while also supporting long-duration energy storage and international trade (Van de Graaf et al., 2020). However, Van de Graaf et al. (2020) caution that hydrogen trade could reproduce fossil fuel-style dependencies without effective global governance.
Noussan et al. (2020) argue that a low-carbon hydrogen economy can strengthen both climate mitigation and energy security, while supporting domestic industrial development. Lebrouhi et al. (2022) further estimate that renewables, electrification, and green hydrogen could account for 60% of emissions reductions in the final phase of the global energy transition.
Policy momentum has accelerated rapidly. The IEA’s Global Hydrogen Review 2024 reports that 60 national hydrogen strategies are now in place globally, alongside nearly USD 100 billion in public funding commitments for hydrogen projects (IEA, 2024a). Despite inflation and supply chain pressures, the Hydrogen Council (2024) maintains that sectoral momentum remains strong.
Zlatea et al. (2024), analysing the EU’s REPowerEU programme after the Russia-Ukraine war, show that geopolitical crises can accelerate clean energy transitions, with the conflict driving greater investment in green hydrogen infrastructure and related decarbonisation initiatives across the EU.
4. Hydrogen as a Geopolitical Asset: The New Geography of Energy
The geopolitical implications of a mature hydrogen economy deserve dedicated attention because they will reshape international relations in ways that differ significantly from the fossil fuel era. Van de Graaf et al. (2020) argue that cross-border maritime hydrogen trade has the potential to create a new class of energy exporters, redrawn geopolitical alliances, and fundamentally altered energy trade geography. Countries with abundant renewable resources, including sunshine, wind, and water, such as Australia, Chile, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Namibia, are already positioning themselves as future hydrogen exporters.
Hancock et al. (2021), examining Australia's plans to export coal-generated blue hydrogen to Japan, offer a cautionary analysis of how security-justice tensions can arise within these emerging energy relationships. Their seven-dimension energy security-justice framework highlights that not all hydrogen supply chain configurations are equal in terms of emissions, social equity, and long-term geopolitical stability. The carbon intensity of the production pathway, the governance of CCS systems, and the distributional effects of the transition all require scrutiny if hydrogen trade is to avoid replicating the pathologies of petro-dependency.
Kovač et al. (2021), in a comprehensive review of hydrogen's role in the global energy transition, confirm that governments worldwide are incorporating hydrogen into national energy legislation and development plans at an accelerating rate, a trend that reflects the emerging consensus that hydrogen is not a niche technology but a foundational component of the twenty-first century energy system. Angelico et al. (2025) add that green hydrogen is on track to achieve cost parity with fossil fuels by 2030, a milestone that would fundamentally alter the economics of the transition.
5. The United Kingdom's Position: Strengths and Vulnerabilities
5.1 A Nation with Considerable Hydrogen Assets
The UK’s 🇬🇧 hydrogen ambitions are substantial. The UK Hydrogen Strategy targets 10 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030, initially split between 4 GW of blue hydrogen and 6 GW of green hydrogen (UK Government, 2021). The incoming Labour government has since pledged to expand green hydrogen capacity further, signalling a stronger renewable focus (Moura et al., 2023).
The UK also possesses significant structural advantages. Edwards et al. (2021) highlight the country’s strong university research base, offshore wind expertise, and existing gas infrastructure as key foundations for hydrogen development. Experience from the North Sea energy sector, including offshore engineering, pipeline management, and subsurface geology, is particularly relevant for hydrogen production, CCS, and storage.
Policy support has also expanded. The UK’s Powering Up Britain: Energy Security Plan (2023) committed major funding through the Net Zero Hydrogen Fund, Industrial Energy Transformation Fund, and Green Industries Growth Accelerator to strengthen clean energy supply chains (UK Government, 2023).
Li et al. (2023) further identify robust regulation, safety standards, and incident reporting systems as essential for hydrogen deployment, while emphasising the importance of SDG 7 (Clean Energy) and SDG 9 (Industry and Infrastructure) in shaping the UK transition. Moura et al. (2023) note that the UK has adopted a pragmatic twin-track strategy, pursuing both blue and green hydrogen simultaneously to balance rapid deployment with long-term decarbonisation. However, Gordon et al. (2023) argue that public concerns around blue hydrogen remain a challenge, requiring transparent communication to maintain support
5.2 Critical Vulnerabilities and Weak Zones
Despite these strengths, the UK's hydrogen transition faces significant structural vulnerabilities that require candid assessment.
🇬🇧 Infrastructure readiness and the cost of conversion. Gordon et al. (2023), using a socio-technical systems perspective, identify major barriers to the UK hydrogen transition, including political commitment, techno-economic feasibility, infrastructure conversion, market development, and public acceptance. Converting the existing gas network to 100% hydrogen will require significant engineering investment and regulatory reform, while uncertainty surrounding the UK’s planned decision on hydrogen heating after the 2026 hydrogen village trials continues to delay industry and consumer confidence (UK Government, 2021). Gordon et al. (2024) further show that public acceptance of hydrogen homes depends heavily on linking renewable hydrogen production to visible local environmental and socio-economic benefits; without this, resistance remains a significant risk.
🇬🇧 Electrolyser and component manufacturing dependency. A critical vulnerability for the UK is its limited domestic electrolyser manufacturing capacity. The IEA (2024a) reports that China currently accounts for 60% of global electrolyser manufacturing capacity and over 40% of global Final Investment Decisions in the sector. As a result, achieving the UK’s 10 GW green hydrogen target would require large-scale reliance on imported electrolysers, creating the same type of concentrated supply chain dependency the hydrogen transition seeks to reduce. Although the £960 million Green Industries Growth Accelerator aims to strengthen hydrogen and CCUS supply chains, current domestic industrial capacity remains insufficient relative to the scale of UK ambitions (Baker McKenzie, 2024).
🇬🇧 Post-Brexit trade alignment and regulatory divergence. The UK’s departure from the EU has created additional challenges for participation in European hydrogen trade networks, certification systems, and infrastructure projects. Although the UK has introduced its own low-carbon hydrogen standard, with a maximum emissions intensity of 2.4 kg CO2e per kg of hydrogen, this differs from emerging EU frameworks (Moura et al., 2023). As the EU expands hydrogen pipelines and cross-border trade networks, the UK risks becoming peripheral to the developing European hydrogen market. To mitigate this, the UK will need mutual recognition of certification schemes and stronger bilateral hydrogen trade agreements with key partners.
🇬🇧 Financing gaps and project delivery at scale. Edwards et al. (2021) note that UK policy and regulatory support for hydrogen has historically lagged behind both other low-carbon technologies and the scale of current ambitions. The Hydrogen Council (2024) further highlights that inflation and high interest rates are delaying hydrogen projects globally, pressures that also affect the UK. Although the Net Zero Hydrogen Fund allocated £90 million to projects delivering 125 MW of production capacity, this remains far below the scale required to achieve the UK’s 10 GW target by 2030 (UK Government, 2021). A significant gap therefore remains between policy ambition and the funded delivery pipeline.
🇬🇧 Dependence on offshore wind for green hydrogen production. The UK's green hydrogen production plans are fundamentally contingent on the continued rapid expansion of offshore wind capacity. While the UK is a world leader in offshore wind, the supply chains for wind turbines, foundations, and associated components have their own geopolitical vulnerability, particularly given the concentration of turbine manufacturing in a small number of European and Chinese firms. This creates a dependency chain in which geopolitical disruption to wind turbine supply chains would cascade into green hydrogen production delays.
5.3 Opportunities That Distinguish the UK
Despite these vulnerabilities, several factors position the UK favourably relative to many peer nations. The country's extensive North Sea experience creates a genuine comparative advantage in offshore CCS, subsurface hydrogen storage, and the development of hydrogen-ready infrastructure. The academic and research ecosystem, while under-resourced relative to its potential, remains internationally competitive in hydrogen materials science, electrochemistry, and supply chain systems research. The creation of Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy production company committed under Labour's manifesto, could, if well-designed, provide patient capital and institutional continuity for hydrogen projects that private markets alone may not support at adequate scale (Baker McKenzie, 2024).
6. Synthesis and Conclusions
The evidence reviewed across this analysis points to a consistent conclusion: geopolitical disruptions are no longer exceptional events but structural features of the global energy system. The Russia-Ukraine war, Middle East conflicts, US-China tensions, and climate-related disruptions have exposed the systemic risks of fossil fuel-dependent and geographically concentrated energy supply chains.
Three interconnected mitigation pathways emerge from the literature: redesigning supply chains through regionalisation and reduced fossil fuel dependence, deploying digital technologies to improve resilience and visibility, and accelerating renewable energy systems with hydrogen as a key enabling energy carrier. The most resilient systems will integrate all three approaches.
Hydrogen has significant potential, but its success depends on effective governance, transparent certification systems, and diversified supply chains to avoid reproducing fossil fuel-era dependencies.
For the UK, strong offshore expertise, research capacity, and policy momentum provide a credible basis for hydrogen leadership. However, challenges remain, including infrastructure conversion, manufacturing dependencies, financing gaps, and post-Brexit trade alignment. Achieving the UK’s hydrogen ambitions will require stronger investment, regulatory certainty, and deeper international supply chain partnerships.
Ultimately, the energy transition is fundamentally a supply chain transformation. Its success will shape not only climate outcomes, but also national security, economic resilience, and long-term social wellbeing.
References
Adeyinka, M. A., et al. (2022). Impact of global disruptions on energy supply chains: Case studies and future outlook. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Updates.
Angelico, R., et al. (2025). Green hydrogen for energy transition: A critical perspective. Energies.
Baker McKenzie. (2024). Hydrogen developments: United Kingdom. Global Hydrogen Policy Tracker. https://resourcehub.bakermckenzie.com/en/resources/hydrogen-heat-map/emea/united-kingdom/topics/hydrogen-developments
Barbosa-Póvoa, A., et al. (2023). Resilient supply chains: Robustness and dynamics in the context of industrial gas supply chains. Computers and Chemical Engineering.
Chang, X., et al. (2025). Geopolitical risk and global supply chain resilience. Finance Research Letters.
Cheng, J., et al. (2023). Role of green technologies, climate uncertainties and energy prices on the supply chain: Policy-based analysis through the lens of sustainable development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
Edwards, R., et al. (2021). The status of hydrogen technologies in the UK: A multi-disciplinary review. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments.
Fernández-Miguel, A., et al. (2022). Disruption in resource-intensive supply chains: Reshoring and nearshoring as strategies to enable them to become more resilient and sustainable. Sustainability.
Gordon, J. A., et al. (2023). Socio-technical barriers to domestic hydrogen futures: Repurposing pipelines, policies, and public perceptions. Applied Energy.
Gordon, J. A., et al. (2024). Coupling green hydrogen production to community benefits: A pathway to social acceptance? Energy Research and Social Science.
Hancock, L., et al. (2021a). A framework for assessing fossil fuel 'retrofit' hydrogen exports: Security-justice implications of Australia's coal-generated hydrogen exports to Japan. Energy.
Hancock, L., et al. (2021b). EU carbon diplomacy: Assessing hydrogen security and policy impact in Australia and Germany. Energies.
Hydrogen Council. (2024). Hydrogen Insights 2024. https://hydrogencouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Hydrogen-Insights-2024.pdf
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2024a). Global Hydrogen Review 2024. IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2024
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2024b). World Energy Outlook 2024. IEA. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/140a0470-5b90-4922-a0e9-838b3ac6918c/WorldEnergyOutlook2024.pdf
Kazançoğlu, Y., et al. (2023). The effects of globalization on supply chain resilience: Outsourcing techniques as interventionism, protectionism, and regionalization strategies. Operations Management Research.
Khan, K., et al. (2025). Exploring the vulnerability of energy security to supply chain interruptions: A global perspective. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy.
Kolapo, A. (2024). Data analytics for resilient and low-carbon energy supply chains: Strengthening energy security in the net-zero era. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews.
Kovač, A., et al. (2021). Hydrogen in energy transition: A review. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.
Lebrouhi, B., et al. (2022). Global hydrogen development: A technological and geopolitical overview. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.
Li, H., et al. (2023). Synergistic integration of hydrogen energy economy with UK's Sustainable Development Goals: A holistic approach to enhancing safety and risk mitigation. Fire.
Moura, J., et al. (2023). Financing low-carbon hydrogen: The role of public policies and strategies in the EU, UK and USA. Green Finance.
Noussan, M., et al. (2020). The role of green and blue hydrogen in the energy transition: A technological and geopolitical perspective. Sustainability.
OECD. (2023). Policies to strengthen the resilience of global value chains (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers).
Sarwar, D., et al. (2025). The impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on global supply chains: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems.
Sufi, F. K., et al. (2025). From events to systems: Modeling disruption dynamics and resilience in global green supply chains. Mathematics.
UK Government. (2021). UK hydrogen strategy. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-hydrogen-strategy
UK Government. (2023). Powering up Britain: Energy security plan. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powering-up-britain/powering-up-britain-energy-security-plan
Van de Graaf, T., et al. (2020). The new oil? The geopolitics and international governance of hydrogen. Energy Research and Social Science.
Yang, S., et al. (2025). Interconnectedness among supply chain disruptions, energy crisis, and oil market volatility on economic resilience. Energy Economics.
Zlatea, M., et al. (2024). Energy resilience during armed conflict: Reconsidering hydrogen for European Union energy security. Romanian Military Thinking.
Napkin for Images