SharePoint Document Approval Workflows: the complete guide to controlling drafts, reviews, and publishing in Microsoft 365

Quick summary: SharePoint approval workflows in 10 points

1. Define the process: what is approved, who approves, which criteria apply, and what happens on rejection or expiry.
2. Separate draft and official: a working library (or folder) and a publishing library (or official view), so everyone knows what is “current.”
3. Clear states: Draft → In review → Approved/Published → Obsolete/Archived.
4. Well-tuned versioning: major versions (and minor versions if needed) to keep traceability without bloating history.
5. Use native approval when it’s enough: “Require approval” in the library for simple, fast control.
6. Use Power Automate when real control is required: sequential/parallel approvals, reminders, reassignment, and Teams notifications.
7. Use metadata to govern: “Status,” “Approver,” “Approval date,” “Next review,” “Department,” “Sensitivity.”
8. Role-based permissions: authors, reviewers/approvers, publishers; avoid individual permissions.
9. Draft security: define who can see pending documents or minor versions to prevent accidental “publishing.”
10. Evidence and compliance: audit, retention, sensitivity labels, and DLP when content is regulated or sensitive.

Introduction: SharePoint document approval workflows (and what usually fails)

In many organizations the problem is not “where to store” a document, but when it becomes official. Without a clear approval workflow, familiar symptoms appear: duplicate versions, uncertainty about which one is current, email approvals with no evidence, documents published too early, or sensitive information shared without control.

Implementing document approval in SharePoint Online means organizing the lifecycle: a document is created, reviewed, approved (or rejected with a reason), published, and—over time—reviewed again or archived. If the customer must demonstrate control (quality, ISO, audits, regulated environments), this workflow stops being “nice to have” and becomes a requirement.

1. Use cases: which documents should be approved in SharePoint (and why)

Not every document needs a full approval circuit. Approval adds value when content has operational, legal, or reputational impact, or when there must be a single valid version. These are the scenarios where a document approval workflow is especially useful:

1.1 Quality documentation, procedures, and work instructions

• Procedures, internal policies, manuals, and ISO documentation.
• Work instructions in operations (safety, production, logistics).
• Documents with periodic review (validity, next review date, obsolescence).

1.2 Legal and contractual

• Contracts, annexes, supplier agreements, NDAs.
• Corporate legal templates that must be controlled.
• Documentation that requires evidence of “who approved what and when.”

1.3 Finance and procurement

• Invoices, purchase orders, budgets, spend approvals.
• Case files with supporting documentation and tax evidence.

1.4 Internal and external publishing

• Internal communications, intranet content, commercial documentation.
• Content shared with customers/suppliers that must be reviewed.

2. Available approaches: native SharePoint approval vs Power Automate vs Teams

There are three common implementation levels. Choosing the right approach prevents over-engineering—or under-delivering. A typical model is a solid library foundation (versioning + content approval) and, where needed, automation with Power Automate.

2.1 Native content approval (SharePoint)

SharePoint can enable “Require content approval” in lists and libraries. When a file is uploaded or modified, its status can remain Pending until someone with approval permissions marks it as Approved or Rejected.

This is useful when the customer needs simple, fast control and accepts a direct approvals operation: review and approve/reject from the library.

2.2 Power Automate approvals

Power Automate enables richer approval flows: multi-stage approvals, parallel approvals, reminders, escalation when there is no response, business fields, automatic metadata updates, and post-approval actions (publish, move, notify).

2.3 Approvals from Microsoft Teams

In environments where Teams is the daily work hub, it makes sense to bring approvals into Teams: approvers receive requests where they already work, can approve from mobile, and the process retains traceability.

3. Designing the approval workflow: roles, states, criteria, and evidence

Practical idea: a good workflow is measured not by “complexity,” but by how easy it is for authors and approvers to do the right thing.

3.1 Typical roles (and why defining them matters)

• Author: creates or updates the document. Knows what to attach, which metadata to complete, and when to “submit for approval.”
• Reviewer: validates content (technical/operational) and returns comments if something is not correct.
• Approver: authorizes publication. Often a department owner, quality, legal, or leadership.
• Publisher: in some models, a separate role that “publishes” into the official library.
• Space owner: ensures permissions, structure, and rules are maintained (governance).

3.2 Recommended states (so everyone speaks the same language)

3.3 Minimum evidence (so the process is defensible)

• Who approved (identity), when (date/time), and which version (version number).
• Rejection reason and comments (on rejection).
• History of changes (versioning) and traceability within the library.

4. Configuring the SharePoint library: versioning, approval, and drafts

Strong approvals rely on library configuration. Without a minimum setup, a document can be “approved” while confusion remains: drafts visible to the wrong audience, uncontrolled versions, or later edits that undermine the concept of an “approved version.”

4.1 Versioning: major and (if applicable) minor

In document libraries, SharePoint supports major versions and, if the customer needs them, minor versions. Major versions typically represent milestones (for example, 1.0, 2.0). Minor versions are useful when there is a draft/review stage before publishing (for example, 2.1, 2.2… until 3.0).

4.2 Require content approval (Content Approval)

Enabling “Require approval” makes a new or modified file Pending until an approver approves it. SharePoint also lets the library define who can see drafts or pending items (preventing unapproved content from circulating internally as if it were official).

4.3 Draft security: who can see what

For sensitive libraries, a common configuration is that only authors and approvers can see drafts or pending items. This reduces the risk of a document “in review” being used as the current version.

5. Native SharePoint approval: the simplest circuit (and when it is enough)

In practice: if the customer needs “pending/approved/rejected” and a simple operation, native approval covers 60–70% of common scenarios.

5.1 How it works (without automation)

1. The author uploads or edits a document in a library where approval is required.
2. The document becomes Pending.
3. An approver reviews and selects Approve or Reject (with a comment).
4. If approved, the document becomes visible to the intended readers (depending on permissions). If rejected, it remains in the library until the author corrects it or someone with appropriate permissions manages it.

5.2 What it does well

• Prevents pending documents from being seen as “official” by general readers (when draft visibility is configured correctly).
• Provides a clear status and a straightforward library-based operation.
• Integrates with versioning, history, and basic content control.

5.3 What is often missing (and why Power Automate is used)

• Robust notifications and reminders for approvers.
• Multi-stage approvals (for example, technical → quality → leadership).
• Automatic escalations if there is no response.
• “If/then” rules (for example, if sensitivity = high, add an extra approver).

6. Approval workflows with Power Automate in SharePoint: real control and automation

Power Automate makes it possible to build a SharePoint document approval workflow with a more complete experience: it can start automatically when a file is uploaded, or manually when the author decides to “submit for approval.” It can also update metadata (status, approver, date) and finish with post-approval actions (publish, move, notify, apply labels).

6.1 Two common ways to trigger the flow

6.2 Typical flow structure (recommended model)

1. Prepare data: read document metadata (department, document type, sensitivity, owner).
2. Start approval: “Start and wait for an approval” (modern approval).
3. Decision: if approved → publish; if rejected → return to draft and record reason.
4. Update SharePoint: metadata (status, approved by, date) and, if native content approval is used, update the “content approval status.”
5. Post action: move to published library, notify stakeholders, apply a label, schedule periodic review, etc.

6.3 Modern approvals and approval types

Power Automate supports common patterns: Approve/Reject, “first to respond,” “everyone must approve,” approvals with mandatory comments, group-based approvals, and sequential/parallel circuits. Selecting the correct type prevents later conflict—for example, “everyone must approve” for a committee where any member can block, versus “first to respond” where one responsible decision is enough.

7. Multi-stage approvals in SharePoint: sequential, parallel, and conditional

In practice, many documents are not approved with a single “yes/no” from one person. A common reality is: technical review, quality validation, and final approval from a department owner or leadership. Power Automate can model this circuit without making it unusable.

7.1 Sequential (one stage after another)

Recommended when order matters: for example, technical first, then quality, then leadership. Benefit: each stage sees the previous result and noise is reduced. Risk: if a stage stalls, everything stalls.

7.2 Parallel (multiple approvers at the same time)

Useful when different areas can review simultaneously and cycle time must be reduced: for example, legal and finance at the same time. Define whether “one response is enough” (first to respond) or “all must approve” (everyone must approve).

7.3 Conditional (based on risk or document type)

A common pattern is adding control for high-sensitivity documents or those affecting customers/suppliers: “if Sensitivity = High, add Legal Approver,” or “if Amount > X, require additional approval.”

8. Dynamic approvers in SharePoint: selecting approvers without maintaining hardcoded lists

A common problem is that approvers change: temporary coverage, rotations, reorganizations, vacations. If a flow is hardcoded with individual names, operations degrade quickly. A better approach is for the flow to determine approvers based on metadata and groups.

8.1 Recommended model (simple, stable)

• Document metadata: Department, Document type, Sensitivity, Cost center, Amount.
• Routing table: SharePoint list or Dataverse table mapping “Department → Approver” (preferably pointing to a group, not a person).
• Groups: Entra ID / Microsoft 365 Groups for approvers (for example, “Quality-Approvers,” “Legal-Approvers”).

8.2 Practical routing example

9. User experience: how to ensure the workflow is used (and not bypassed)

Approval works when users can do the right thing without excessive effort. If the process is slow, confusing, or hidden, approvals happen “over WhatsApp” or by email with no trace. Three points usually make the difference: where approval starts, where requests arrive, and where status is visible.

9.1 Where to start the approval

• A clear library button (“Request approval”) or a “For a selected file” flow.
• An automatic rule on upload when the business requires it (for example, invoices).

9.2 Where the approver approves

• Email: useful when approvers work in inbox, but the link should take them to the document and context.
• Teams: ideal in Teams-centric cultures; reduces friction and speeds up approval times.

9.3 Where document status is visible

• A “Status” and “Approval” column in the library, with views such as “Pending approvals,” “Rejected,” “Published.”
• A simple dashboard list: pending counts, average time, blockers.

10. Security and permissions in SharePoint approval workflows: least privilege and drafts

A critical point: sending an approval request does not automatically grant the approver access to the document. If approvers cannot open the file, approvals break (or are handled “outside the system”).

10.1 Basic permission rules that prevent incidents

• Group-based permissions (Entra ID / Microsoft 365), avoiding individual assignments.
• Limited roles: few owners, defined approvers, and authors with sufficient edit permissions.
• Draft visibility: configure who can see pending documents or minor versions based on risk.
• Recertification: periodically review access in critical libraries.

10.2 “Approver without access”: how to prevent it

When a flow assigns approval to someone without permissions, the customer must solve it by design: either the approver belongs to a group that has access to the library/case file, or a review library is created with appropriate permissions.

11. Traceability in approvals: versioning, history, comments, and audit

In a serious approval workflow, “approved” means “this specific version, with this content, was validated by these people.” To achieve that, it helps for the customer to combine:

• Versioning to track what changed and when.
• Approval metadata (approved by, date, rejection reason).
• Approval comments to justify decisions.
• Audit for regulated environments or investigations.

11.1 What to record at minimum in the library

12. Compliance in approvals: Purview (sensitivity, retention) and DLP

When documents are sensitive or regulated, approvals are typically paired with compliance controls. The objective is that content is not only “approved,” but also protected, retained for the correct period, and not shared improperly.

12.1 Sensitivity labels: protecting documents even after download

Sensitivity labels allow classification and—when configured—encryption and access restrictions. A common approval pattern: when moving to “Approved/Published,” the flow can validate or apply a label based on document type or sensitivity.

12.2 Retention and disposition: keep what is required and delete what is not

For quality documentation, contracts, or finance, retention is often required. Approval can be the control point where lifecycle start is defined (for example, “retain 7 years from approval” or “from signature”).

12.3 DLP: preventing sensitive documents from being shared externally

DLP can help block or limit external sharing when content contains sensitive information (personal data, financial data, etc.). It is common to start in audit mode and tighten gradually to avoid disrupting legitimate operations.

13. What to do when a SharePoint document is approved: publish, move, notify, archive

Workflow value increases when “approve” does not end in an email, but triggers actions that keep the document system organized. These actions should be simple and predictable: the document changes state and appears in the correct place.

13.1 Common patterns on approval

• Publish: move the document into a “Current” library or activate a “Published” view.
• Move: move from “Drafts” to “Official” (or from a team site to a communication site).
• Label: apply sensitivity or retention labels based on document type.
• Notify: alert stakeholders that a new current version exists (Teams/email).
• Schedule review: create a task/alert for the next review (for example, in 6 or 12 months).

13.2 Patterns on rejection

• Return to draft with mandatory “Rejection reason.”
• Block publishing and keep visibility restricted.
• Re-send to review only when the author marks “ready” again (prevents loops).

14. Operating and maintaining approval workflows: avoid single-person dependency

A workflow fails when only one person knows how it works or when it is tied to a user account that leaves the organization. For long-term sustainability, workflows should be treated as business assets: with owners, controlled change, and a minimum level of documentation.

14.1 Operational recommendations

• Ownership: define a business owner and a technical owner (who decides changes and who implements them).
• Controlled changes: if states, metadata, or stages change, record and communicate the change.
• Connections and accounts: avoid dependence on a single personal account; use co-owners and a continuity strategy.
• Monitoring: review flow errors, approval times, and bottlenecks.

14.2 Simple metrics that help a lot

• Average approval time by document type.
• Pending documents by approver/area.
• Rejections by cause (to improve draft quality).

15. Common mistakes in SharePoint approval workflows (and mitigations)

16. Operational checklists to implement SharePoint document approval workflows

16.1 Design checklist (before configuration)

• Document types that require approval and why (risk, impact, auditability).
• Roles: authors, reviewers, approvers, publishers, owners.
• States and transitions (what moves a document from one state to another).
• Minimum metadata: status, type, department, sensitivity, approver, dates.
• Library model: drafts vs published (or equivalent views).
• Evidence to retain (comments, dates, version, audit).

16.2 Implementation checklist (SharePoint + Power Automate)

• Configure versioning and content approval in libraries where applicable.
• Define draft/pending visibility based on roles and risk.
• Create views: “Pending,” “Rejected,” “Published,” “Due for review.”
• Build the flow (manual or automatic) and test with real cases.
• Update metadata and (if applicable) set content approval status at the end of the flow.
• Teams/email notifications and clear messages for authors/approvers.

16.3 Operations checklist (day to day)

• Periodic review of pending items and approval times.
• Substitution management (vacations, role changes, departures).
• Permission recertification in critical libraries.
• Review flow errors and apply controlled process changes.
• If compliance applies: review retention, labels, and DLP as needed.

17. Frequently asked questions (FAQ) about SharePoint document approval workflows

18. Official resources and recommended links

• Require approval of items in a list or library (SharePoint)
• Require approval of documents in SharePoint using Power Automate (guidance)
• Modern approvals in Power Automate
• Trigger approvals from a SharePoint document library
• Approvals in Microsoft Teams
• How versioning works in lists and libraries
• SharePoint connector (Power Automate): Set content approval status

Related MSAdvance services: Modern Workplace, Power Platform automation and Microsoft 365 security and compliance.

19. Conclusion: how to implement SharePoint document approval workflows that actually work

A strong SharePoint document approval workflow relies on three pillars: clarity (roles and states), control (versioning, approval, permissions), and automation (Power Automate when the business requires it). Implemented this way, the customer gains something concrete: confidence that the approved document is the valid version, backed by evidence.

As next steps, it is typically useful to:

• Select 1–2 critical document types (procedures, contracts, invoices) and design the workflow for those cases.
• Configure libraries with versioning, approval, and draft visibility aligned to risk.
• Implement Power Automate if stages, reminders, or automated publishing are required.
• Create views and short guides for authors and approvers (how to submit, how to approve, where to see status).