An approval workflow is a defined sequence of review and sign-off steps an asset moves through before it can be published or used. It routes the asset to the right people, in order, through states like in review, changes requested and approved — and records who signed off. It controls whether an asset is cleared to go live, which is a different thing from permissions, the rules for who may edit it in the first place.
In plain English
Without one, an asset is “done” whenever someone decides it is, and approval lives in a scatter of emails and chat messages. When a mistake ships — an off-brand layout, an unlicensed photo, last week’s price — nobody can say who cleared it, because nobody really did.
An approval workflow replaces that with a tracked path. The asset is submitted for review, goes to the people who have to sign off, comes back approved or with changes requested, and only becomes publishable once it’s cleared. The DAM holds the states and the record, so “who approved this, and when?” always has an answer.
An approval workflow is not permissions — or the review queue
Two things get blurred with it. The first is permissions: permissions decide who can upload or edit an asset; an approval workflow decides whether a specific asset is cleared to go live. A permission stops the wrong person touching a file; a workflow lets the right people work on it but still gates publication behind a recorded sign-off. A tool can have solid permissions and no real approval step — that gap is exactly what the workflow fills.
The second is the review queue, which is narrower: in this glossary it’s the holding area where AI-suggested tags wait for a human before they join the searchable vocabulary. Both share “a human signs off before it counts,” but a review queue gates machine-suggested metadata, while an approval workflow routes whole assets through human approvers.
Why it matters in a DAM
It’s how an organization keeps the wrong thing from going live and can prove, afterwards, that the right people cleared the right version. The sign-off is auditable: paired with an audit trail, “someone approved this at some point” becomes a dated record of who approved what. And it pairs with version control — version control tracks every edit; the approval workflow decides which of those versions is actually blessed to publish.
Inside the review step, feedback usually happens through proofing: reviewers pin comments or draw markup directly on the asset, so a change request lands on the exact spot rather than in a vague email. Proofing is how the review is done; the workflow is the routing and states around it.
The tell of a real approval workflow: an asset can be submitted, routed to named approvers (in sequence or in parallel), sent back with changes requested or marked approved, and only published once it’s cleared — with every step logged. A single “approved?” checkbox with no routing and no history isn’t a workflow; it’s a label.
Related terms
See it in action
How real that review step actually is — routing, states and a record, versus a lone checkbox — is what we test in our DAM with approval workflows ranking. It matters most where assets go out under a brand or a licence, which is also the job behind a brand portal.
FAQ
What is an approval workflow in a DAM?
An approval workflow is the structured path an asset takes before it's allowed to go live. Instead of a file being 'done' when someone decides it is, it moves through defined review and sign-off steps - a designer submits it, a brand manager reviews it, maybe legal clears the rights - and only becomes publishable once the required people have approved it. The DAM tracks the states (in review, changes requested, approved) and records who signed off, so 'who approved this?' always has an answer.
How is an approval workflow different from permissions?
Permissions control who can upload or edit an asset; an approval workflow controls whether a specific asset is cleared to go live. They answer different questions. A permission stops the wrong person from touching a file at all. An approval workflow lets the right people work on a file but still requires a structured, recorded sign-off before it's published - a gate on the asset, not on the person. A tool can have solid permissions and no real approval step, which is exactly the gap the workflow fills.
Is an approval workflow the same as a review queue?
No - a review queue is narrower. In our glossary a review queue is specifically the holding area where AI-suggested tags wait for a human to approve them before they join the searchable vocabulary. An approval workflow is broader: it routes whole assets or deliverables through human approvers, in defined stages, before publication. Both share the idea of 'a human signs off before it counts,' but one gates machine-suggested metadata and the other gates the asset itself.
Why does an approval workflow matter?
Because it's how an organization stops the wrong thing from going live - an off-brand layout, an unlicensed photo, last week's price - and can prove afterwards that the right people cleared it. The sign-off is auditable: paired with an audit trail, it turns 'someone approved this at some point' into a dated record of who approved what. It also pairs with version control, which tracks every edit, by deciding which version is actually blessed to publish. Reviewers usually give feedback through proofing - comments or markup pinned to the asset - so the request for changes lands on the exact spot, not in a vague email.
What does a real approval workflow need to have?
Defined steps and states, the right routing, and a record. At minimum: an asset can be submitted for review, sent to one or more named approvers (sometimes in sequence, sometimes in parallel), marked approved or sent back with changes requested, and only published once it's cleared - with each of those actions logged. A single 'approved?' checkbox with no routing and no history isn't a workflow; it's a label. Which tools implement a real, auditable step rather than a checkbox is a separate, commercial question - see our approval-workflow ranking.