diff --git a/app/helpers/admin/editions_helper.rb b/app/helpers/admin/editions_helper.rb
index 19960b14617..adcf50fb39d 100644
--- a/app/helpers/admin/editions_helper.rb
+++ b/app/helpers/admin/editions_helper.rb
@@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ def admin_state_filter_options
       ["All states", "active"],
       %w[Draft draft],
       %w[Submitted submitted],
+      %w[Approved approved],
       %w[Rejected rejected],
       %w[Scheduled scheduled],
       %w[Published published],
diff --git a/app/models/concerns/edition/workflow.rb b/app/models/concerns/edition/workflow.rb
index b75b4f3a5b2..dc7d3dae6ec 100644
--- a/app/models/concerns/edition/workflow.rb
+++ b/app/models/concerns/edition/workflow.rb
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ def in_state(state)
     end
 
     def valid_state?(state)
-      %w[active draft submitted rejected published scheduled force_published withdrawn not_published unpublished].include?(state)
+      %w[active draft submitted rejected approved published scheduled force_published withdrawn not_published unpublished].include?(state)
     end
   end
 
@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ def valid_state?(state)
       state :draft
       state :submitted
       state :rejected
+      state :approved
       state :scheduled
       state :published
       state :superseded
@@ -44,7 +45,7 @@ def valid_state?(state)
       end
 
       event :schedule do
-        transitions from: :submitted, to: :scheduled
+        transitions from: :approved, to: :scheduled
       end
 
       event :force_schedule do
@@ -56,7 +57,7 @@ def valid_state?(state)
       end
 
       event :publish do
-        transitions from: %i[submitted scheduled], to: :published
+        transitions from: %i[approved scheduled], to: :published
       end
 
       event :force_publish do
@@ -67,6 +68,19 @@ def valid_state?(state)
         transitions from: %i[published unpublished], to: :unpublished
       end
 
+      # TODO: presumably we need some governance around how an edition can become
+      # approved. I guess whoever has the power to 'reject' a submitted edition
+      # should also have the power to 'approve'.
+      #
+      # And there should be implications for the publishing workflow, i.e. right now
+      # it is possible to publish (not force publish) a submitted edition), but
+      # we're saying that an edition that is merely 'submitted' should now only have
+      # the force-publish/force-schedule options available to it. Only "approved"
+      # editions should be able to be published or scheduled normally.
+      event :approve do
+        transitions from: %i[submitted], to: :approved
+      end
+
       event :supersede, success: :destroy_associations_with_edition_dependencies_and_dependants do
         transitions from: %i[published unpublished], to: :superseded
       end
diff --git a/test/functional/admin/edition_workflow_controller_test.rb b/test/functional/admin/edition_workflow_controller_test.rb
index b7772f92b02..874a5be63b8 100644
--- a/test/functional/admin/edition_workflow_controller_test.rb
+++ b/test/functional/admin/edition_workflow_controller_test.rb
@@ -217,13 +217,14 @@ class Admin::EditionWorkflowControllerTest < ActionController::TestCase
     assert_equal "All workflow actions require a lock version", response.body
   end
 
-  test "approve_retrospectively marks the document as having been approved retrospectively and redirects back to he edition" do
+  test "approve_retrospectively marks the document as having been approved retrospectively and redirects back to the edition" do
     editor = create(:departmental_editor)
     acting_as(editor) { force_publish(draft_edition) }
     post :approve_retrospectively, params: { id: draft_edition, lock_version: draft_edition.lock_version }
 
     assert_redirected_to admin_publication_path(draft_edition)
     assert_equal "Thanks for reviewing; this document is no longer marked as force-published", flash[:notice]
+    # Missing assertion here. Should check `force_published` is now false,
   end
 
   test "approve_retrospectively responds with 422 if missing a lock version" do