Hydrogen is gaining interest as a clean energy source from both governments and fossil fuel companies. For hydrogen projects to succeed, securing public acceptability is crucial, with trust in the implementing actors playing a central role. Drawing from reputation management and attribution theory, we experimentally evaluated whether people's perceptions of energy companies wanting to start producing hydrogen for sustainability reasons differ based on two features of hydrogen production. Specifically, we examined the influence of (1) the type of hydrogen (blue versus green) and (2) the energy company's history in energy production (fossil fuels versus renewables) on perceptions about the companies' reputation management efforts —that is, the belief that companies adopt hydrogen primarily to improve their public image— as well as on levels of trust, both overall and specifically in terms of integrity and competence. We further explored whether perceived reputation management explains the effects on trust, and whether these factors also shape public acceptability of hydrogen production itself. Results indicated that people perceived the company with a history of working with fossil fuels as trying to improve its reputation more than one associated with renewables, and trusted it less. Furthermore, perceived reputation management explained the lower (general and integrity-based) trust people had in companies with a past in fossil fuels. For public acceptability of hydrogen, the company's history was not relevant, with green hydrogen being more acceptable than blue, regardless of which company produced it. We discuss these findings in relation to the literature on public perceptions of hydrogen.