Climate change affects the business environment, and companies need future‐oriented information to build climate resilience. To this end, companies are encouraged to conduct climate change scenario analysis, as recommended by the Task Force on Climate‐Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). However, companies' actual adoption of this practice is limited as they lack a straightforward scenario analysis implementation process and relevant climate change knowledge. This research develops an implementation process by clarifying the concept of resilience into a stability and a change domain and by specifying the type of focal questions for these two domains. Next, a scenario typology guides the selection of reference scenarios, and two standard scenario methods guide the tailoring of these reference scenarios to company‐specific scenarios. By structuring this process in five steps and specifying input and process requirements, we provide an implementation process called the climate resilience cycle. By applying the cycle in transdisciplinary teams of climate change experts and company staff with knowledge about the company value chain, we bring in the required knowledge. To become climate resilient, the outcomes of the climate resilience cycle need to be integrated in the business planning and the overall company strategy. We argue that implementing the cycle as a new company routine contributes to the development of dynamic capabilities like sensing, seizing and transforming, which have been proven to be essential for integrating sustainability in company strategies. Once begun, we show how the cycle can become part of a company strategy process.

This paper is written in response to the paper “How green is blue hydrogen?” by R. W. Howarth and M. Z. Jacobson. It aims at highlighting and discussing the method and assumptions of that paper, and thereby providing a more balanced perspective on blue hydrogen, which is in line with current best available practices and future plant specifications aiming at low CO₂ emissions. More specifically, in this paper, we show that: (i) the simplified method that Howarth and Jacobson used to compute the energy balance of blue hydrogen plants leads to significant overestimation of CO₂ emissions and natural gas (NG) consumption and (ii) the assumed methane leakage rate is at the high end of the estimated emissions from current NG production in the United States and cannot be considered representative of all‐NG and blue hydrogen value chains globally. By starting from the detailed and rigorously calculated mass and energy balances of two blue hydrogen plants in the literature, we show the impact that methane leakage rate has on the equivalent CO₂ emissions of blue hydrogen. On the basis of our analysis, we show that it is possible for blue hydrogen to have significantly lower equivalent CO₂ emissions than the direct use of NG, provided that hydrogen production processes and CO₂ capture technologies are implemented that ensure a high CO₂ capture rate, preferably above 90%, and a low‐emission NG supply chain.