SES vs paper: what changes (and what doesn't) in authorizations

For years, "authorizing" has meant printing a sheet, asking for a handwritten signature and filing it in a folder. A simple electronic signature (SES) — like the one used by tools built for activities, such as Sygnau — changes the channel, not the purpose: knowing who authorized what and when.

This article compares traditional paper with an SES authorization flow. It is not legal advice: the right level of assurance depends on the document, the risk and the applicable regulations.

What is an SES in this context

Under eIDAS, the simple electronic signature is the broadest level: electronic data attached to other data and used to sign. It can be, among other things:

• drawing a signature on a mobile phone;
• accepting with a checkbox and clear wording;
• leaving evidence of date, version and channel.

It is not an AES nor a QES. It does not automatically claim to be equivalent to a handwritten signature backed by a qualified certificate. Its practical value for schools, clubs and youth centers is the process: a link, signing without an account, a PDF and tracking. More detail in SES, AES and QES and Is SES legal?.

Quick comparison

Aspect	Traditional paper	SES (e.g. Sygnau)
How you sign	Pen on paper	Drawn signature / acceptance in the browser
Who can sign	The sheet must be handed in or returned	Anyone with the link (no account needed)
"Who's missing?"	Manual review of folders / WhatsApp	Statuses on a dashboard (pending, opened, completed…)
Filing	Physical folders or scattered scans	PDF + record of the signed version
Text changes	Reprint and resend	New version; tracking doesn't silently mix versions
Exceptions	Paper is the system	Paper optional (hybrid with QR code and review)
Hidden cost	Printing, chasing, lost sheets	Setup time and a new habit
Identity	"Known" handwritten signature	Contextual + process evidence (not QES)

Where paper still holds up

Paper isn't "outdated" by default. It's still useful when:

• the family or guardian prefers or needs a handwritten signature;
• there's no reliable phone, data or email on the day of the activity;
• the organization wants a physical document at a specific point (door, changing room);
• the risk level or internal policy calls for an already familiar format.

The problem isn't the sheet: it's the sheet without a system. When tracking only lives in a folder or a chat, uncertainty returns the day before the trip.

Where an SES brings clarity

An SES well supported by an authorization flow mainly improves:

1. Sending speed: a link (open, with a code, or personal) instead of photocopies.
2. Visibility: knowing who has opened it, who has completed it and who hasn't yet.
3. Less loss: the PDF doesn't stay stuck in a backpack with no trace on the dashboard.
4. Versioning: you change the text and publish a new version; you don't accidentally mix "yes" answers across different texts.
5. Scale: a whole class or club without chasing sheets one by one.

Sygnau, as an example of an SES product for activities, adds participants and groups, emails (depending on plan) and a hybrid path: if paper is needed, it's printed, scanned and confirmed after human review.

What an SES doesn't solve on its own

• It doesn't replace legal advice or the organization's policy.
• It doesn't automatically equal a QES nor everything required by a formal procedure with a qualified certificate.
• It doesn't remove the need to review content before publishing (not even with AI).
• It doesn't make human exceptions disappear: there will always be someone who arrives late or without a phone.

That's why a hybrid model (paper + digital in the same tracking) tends to be more realistic than "absolute zero paper." Guide: Paper and digital at the same time.

Real cost: not just ink

Cost	Paper	SES + authorization tool
Direct	Printing, envelopes, binders	Plan (e.g. Free / Pro)
Office time	Chasing, counting, filing	One-time setup + reminders
Errors	Lost sheet, illegible signature, outdated text	Scans and publications need review
On activity day	"Who hasn't brought the sheet?"	Filter for pending items on the dashboard

The cost shift is usually from hours of chasing to minutes of tracking, if the process is well set up.

When to stick with paper (for now)

• Very low volume and everyone already hands in the sheet without friction.
• You don't need a "who's missing" overview before the activity.
• You don't want to (yet) train the team on a new tool.

In this case, digitizing afterward (tidy scanning) is already a step forward; the move to SES can wait.

When to switch to SES (with or without residual paper)

• You have classes or teams and the day before you still don't know who has authorized.
• You mix WhatsApp, email and paper without a single status.
• You often change the wording of the authorization.
• You want archivable PDFs and fewer physical folders, without forcing everyone to go 100% digital on day one.

Summary

Traditional paper is familiar and tangible; an SES like Sygnau's brings tracking, links and digital filing with less friction for those who can sign on a mobile phone. They're not enemies: the best design is usually SES by default and paper when needed, on the same dashboard.

If you want to try the flow with no commitment, you can create an account and publish a test authorization.