Somewhere in your organisation, there's a signage spec that nobody's questioned in years. Written by someone who's probably moved on. Quietly working against your own sustainability commitments.
We see it constantly. A brief lands on our desk and buried in the technical requirements is a line like "graphics to be digitally printed self-adhesive vinyl, gloss laminated, applied to 5mm foamex." No context. No reasoning. Just a process spec that's been copied forward from the last brief, which was copied from the one before that, which traces back to a decision someone made years ago under completely different circumstances.
Read that spec again. It describes five separate layers of material: printed vinyl film, its siliconised backing paper, a plastic overlaminate, the laminate's backing paper, and the board itself. Two of those layers are single-use that gets peeled off and binned before the sign even leaves the factory*. Nobody questions it because nobody remembers why it was chosen in the first place. It's just "what we use."
This piece is my opninion about the cost of that inertia. Not a sales pitch for specific materials or suppliers. An honest look at what happens when specifications go unchallenged, and why the person reading this might be exactly the right person to do something about it.
The Spec That Nobody Wrote
Brand guidelines are living documents in theory. In practice, the substrates section can often be the least-maintained part of the entire brand manual. The logo usage gets updated. The colour palette evolves. The photography style shifts with each refresh. But the line that describes how signs should be manufactured... the board material, the graphics method, the finish... stays put, year after year, rebrand after rebrand.
We've worked with organisations where the signage spec predates the current brand manager, the current procurement lead, and in some cases the current brand identity itself. The spec survived a complete visual rebrand untouched. Nobody thought to ask whether the materials or the manufacturing process should evolve alongside the logo.
Sometimes a brand refresh will introduce one eye-catching material for the flagship store... a feature wall, a hero panel, something the design agency can photograph for the case study. That gets the attention. But the bulk of a signage programme isn't hero panels. It's the everyday stuff. Directional signs, menu boards, promotional displays, compliance panels. The volume items that nobody gets excited about but that account for the real material footprint. Those are the specs we're talking about here, and they're almost always the ones left untouched.
The document itself might even feel current. But underneath that fresh coat of paint, the structural decisions... what the signs are made from, how the graphics are produced, what gets specified on a purchase order... haven't been reconsidered in years. The surface changed. The foundations didn't.
It's understandable. Signage materials feel technical. If you're a brand manager, your expertise is in visual identity, messaging, customer experience. You're not expected to be a materials scientist. So when you inherit a set of guidelines that includes a material spec, you leave it alone. It worked before. It'll work again. Move on to the things you're actually measured on.
"It worked before" isn't the same as "it's the best option now." And the gap between those two statements gets wider every year.
The IBM Rule
There's an old saying in procurement: nobody ever got fired for buying IBM. The safe choice. The established vendor. The thing everyone else is using. It might not be the best, but it won't embarrass you.
Signage specs work the same way. If you specify what's always been specified and it performs adequately, you're invisible. No complaints. No questions from above. The signs go up, they look fine, job done. But if you change something and there's a problem... a board that warps, a finish that doesn't match, a material that behaves differently during installation... that's on you. You made the call. You deviated from the established spec.
In cases like this we've let inertia win. Not because anyone was lazy or indifferent, but because the incentive structure punishes experimentation and rewards repetition. The person who sticks with what's always worked gets a quiet life. The person who pushes for something better carries all the risk.
If your strategy says reduce plastic, but your signage spec still calls for foam PVC and applied vinyl... that's a gap worth closing.
Nerd heart on sleeve for a moment. If you've ever watched Halt and Catch Fire, there's a scene in the first episode where Joe MacMillan is pitching against exactly this mentality. The safe choice. The default. The thing you pick so nobody can blame you. It's a fictional scene about the tech industry in 1983, but the dynamic hasn't changed. The people who move things forward are the ones willing to say "this could be better" when everyone around them is comfortable with good enough.
We get it. We work in manufacturing. We understand the comfort of a proven process and the anxiety of changing one. But we also see what's on the other side of that anxiety, and it's better than what most organisations are settling for.
The World Moved. Your Spec Didn't.
Think about what's changed since many of these specs were first written. Sustainability was an obscure entry on procurement scorecards. ESG reporting wasn't a board-level concern. Recycled-content rigid boards were a niche product. Paper-based alternatives were flimsy and unreliable. LED illumination was expensive and limited. Digital print technology was a fraction of what it is now.
None of that is true anymore. The materials available to sign manufacturers in 2026 are vastly different from what was on the market when most brand guidelines were first drafted. Boards with genuine recycled content. FSC-certified celluolose fibre-based substrates, with chain of custody paper trails, that perform as well as plastic for interior use. Modular systems designed for reuse across multiple campaigns.
And print technology has moved on dramatically. Flatbed UV printers can now lay down opaque white ink, full-colour process, spot varnishes and even 3d texture finishes directly onto a rigid board as a single print process. The spec that calls for printed self-adhesive vinyl with a laminate overlay was written for the equipment of ten or fifteen years ago. For most interior signage, that entire graphics application process can be replaced by printing straight onto the board. No vinyl. No laminate. No backing papers. No waste.
There's an obvious counterpoint. Some environments need a tougher finish. A high-traffic retail unit, a public-facing wall in an area prone to graffiti or scuffing... an unprotected print surface might not last, and having to replace signage twice is hardly a green outcome. Fair enough. But even in those cases, a graffiti-resistant or anti-scratch laminate film can be applied over a direct-to-board print. You've still eliminated the printed vinyl layer and its backing paper. Half the film-related waste gone, with the durability preserved. The right answer is always the one that accounts for all the variables. We're not suggesting you strip protection from signage that needs it, just that the default shouldn't be born from five layers of material when two or three will do the job.
The supply chain has evolved. The question is whether your specification has kept pace.
What a Stale Spec Actually Costs You
The obvious cost is financial. You might be specifying a more expensive material when a better-performing, better value alternative exists. But that's the smallest part of it.
More important is the physical cost. We weighed the waste from a standard vinyl-and-laminate graphics application in our own factory. Vinyl film, laminate film, and their backing papers, stripped off and binned. Roughly a kilogram of combined waste per square metre of finished graphics. Not a lab measurement. A factory-floor one. Now scale that across a 200-site rollout with display panels in every store. The numbers get uncomfortable quickly, and every gram of it is avoidable if the graphics are printed direct to board instead.
Then there's the board itself. Your spec might still call for PVC foam when paper-fibre alternatives or recycled-content boards can do the same job for interior applications. That's a separate decision from the graphics method, and both are worth reviewing. (We wrote about the substrate side of this in more detail in our piece on 'Recyclable' vs 'Recycled'.)
The bigger costs are strategic. Your procurement team is being scored on sustainability criteria in tenders. If your signage spec doesn't reflect current best practice, you're handing points to competitors who've bothered to update theirs. We've seen tender responses where the signage materials section is the weakest part of an otherwise strong submission, simply because the spec flew under the radar. It wasn't that nobody cared. It's that nobody with the right perspective had the opportunity to reconsider it. That might be you.
Everyone's ESG reporting has gaps. Ours included. We find new ones every year and that's the point... you keep looking, you keep improving. But if your corporate strategy says you're committed to reducing plastic use and your signage spec still calls for PVC foam and applied vinyl graphics across the board, that's a gap worth closing. The disconnect is visible to anyone who looks closely enough, and increasingly, people are looking.
Your suppliers are constrained. A good sign manufacturer will work with whatever you specify. But if you're specifying materials and processes from a decade ago, you're not getting the benefit of their knowledge about what's available now. You're paying for expertise and then not using it.
When was the last time someone in your organisation sat down with your sign supplier and asked: "If you were writing this spec from scratch today, what would you recommend?"
If the answer is "never," you're not collaborating. You're just ordering.
The spec from 2015 isn't just old. It's actively working against your current objectives. Every brief that goes out with an unreviewed material specification is a missed opportunity to align your signage programme with where your organisation is now, not where it was when someone else made the decision.
How to Start the Conversation
Challenging an established spec doesn't have to be dramatic. You don't need to propose a wholesale overhaul of your brand guidelines in a board meeting. Start smaller than that.
Talk to your sign supplier. Any decent manufacturer will welcome the conversation. Ask them what they'd recommend if they were starting from a blank sheet. Ask what materials have changed since your spec was last reviewed. Ask what other organisations in your sector are doing. You'll get an honest answer, and you'll probably learn something useful.
Talk to your brand team. Perhaps frame it as evolution, not criticism. "I've been looking at the signage specs in our guidelines and I think there might be better options available now. Can we review it?"
And if you want to get your design team genuinely excited rather than just compliant, show them what direct-to-board printing opens up creatively. A spot varnish finish layer laid down like an ink gives you selective gloss and matte in the same print pass. Textured finishes, tactile effects, design details that applied vinyl simply can't do. The sustainability argument gets easier to make when the creative possibilities are better on the other side of the change, not worse.
Talk to your procurement lead. If sustainability criteria are showing up in tenders, your procurement team needs to know that the signage spec is current and defensible. They might already be aware it's a weak spot. They might be waiting for someone with the technical context to raise it.
Propose a trial. One site. One campaign. One material or process swap on a non-critical application. Measure the results. Photograph the finish. Get feedback from installers. Build a small evidence base before you pitch the bigger change. Reduce the risk and you reduce the resistance.
The conversation itself is valuable even if nothing changes immediately. At least the spec has been reviewed. At least someone's asked the question. That's more than most organisations manage.
Direct to board. Spot varnish finish. No vinyl. No laminate. No backing papers in the bin. The gloss layer itself becomes a creative tool, not just a protective one.
Better for the environment. Better for the design. Worth asking about.
Be the Person Who Moves It Forward
Every organisation has someone who's already thinking about this. Someone who's read the sustainability report and noticed it doesn't quite match what's happening on the ground. Someone who's seen the tender scoring criteria shift and knows the old spec won't cut it much longer. Someone who cares enough to ask whether there's a better way.
If you've read this far, perhaps that person is you.
We're not saying this because we want your business. We're saying it because we've spent years watching perfectly good organisations leave better options on the table because nobody was brave enough to question a document they'd inherited. The waste of that... not just material waste, but wasted potential, wasted alignment with claimed values, wasted opportunities to lead rather than follow... that's what frustrates us.
The biggest blocker we see isn't technical. It's habit. People are comfortable with the process they know. Getting a design team or a procurement lead to embrace a different manufacturing process takes someone willing to show them the possibilities, not just the environmental argument. When the creative opportunities click... when they see what a spot varnish layer can do, or what printing direct to a sustainable board opens up for their brand... the resistance tends to dissolve. We like working with people who feel inspired by things like this. Life is better when everyone's pulling in the same direction.
Someone in your organisation has to go to bat for better materials and better processes. Not because a sign company said so. Because the evidence supports it and the old spec doesn't.
Challenge the spec. Ask the questions. Talk to your suppliers, whoever they are. If the existing materials and methods turn out to be the right ones after a proper review, fine. At least the decision is active and informed rather than inherited and assumed.
But if you find there's something better available... be the person who makes the change. Your 2026 strategy deserves a 2026 specification.
M Mason
Who Should Be Having This Conversation?
This isn't about us. It's about the gap between where your organisation is headed and what your signage spec still says. If any of the following sound familiar, the review is overdue.
Brand Managers
You own the guidelines. If the material spec hasn't been reviewed in the last three years, it's worth ten minutes of your time to check it still makes sense.
Procurement Teams
Tender scoring criteria are shifting toward sustainability. An outdated spec in your submission is a visible weakness that evaluators will notice.
Facilities & Estates
You deal with the end-of-life reality. You know what happens to signage when it comes down. Your input on material choices is valuable and underused.
Sustainability Leads
If your signage programme isn't aligned with your ESG commitments, this is a quick win hiding in plain sight. Ask for the spec. Read it. Start there.
Want to Talk It Through?
If you're reviewing your signage specs and want a straight conversation about what's available now, we're happy to help. No obligation, no pitch. We'd rather you made an informed decision than a default one.
GET IN TOUCH