Co-Fund is proceeding with another financing round this year, the first since the recent revision of its internal regulations, which now provides for financing applications to be reviewed throughout the year.
On this basis, and following evaluation of the relevant application, Co-Fund’s General Assembly approved financing of 6,000 euros to the Social Cooperative Enterprise “Anaviosis“, an innovative Social and Solidarity Economy startup, active in the field of functional foods based on beneficial microorganisms. Co-Fund’s financing will serve as seed capital for carrying out the first production cycle of “Manjuni”: a natural product made through the fermentation of herbs, honey, and selected probiotic cultures, which helps maintain the balance of the gut microbiome as part of a healthy lifestyle.
Despite the high risk of the business proposal, since it concerns the production and marketing of a new product by a startup venture with no established market share, the productive nature and high social value of this activity, as well as the joint development of a realistic business plan by both parties, led to the final approval of the financing.
In the absence of other financing applications in recent months, there is no need to set financing priorities through a vote by the members of Co-Fund’s financing community. Also, the amount is more than covered by Co-Fund’s available financing capital, which allows the disbursement process to begin immediately. Nevertheless, as is standard practice, we publish the result of the second stage of the application evaluation, in order to ensure the greatest possible transparency and a clearer presentation of Co-Fund’s financing policy to community members and the wider public.
The detailed evaluation follows:
A. The business proposal is assessed as satisfactory, as it covers key figures such as production and distribution costs, includes a realistic estimate of revenue from product sales, and provides for a clear repayment plan for the financing (3.0).
B. The social utility of the proposal is assessed as high, as it concerns the production of a natural food supplement that is particularly beneficial for health (4.8).
C. The ecological footprint of the proposal is assessed very positively, as production is based exclusively on natural materials and fermentation processes (5.0).
D. The risk of the proposal is assessed as relatively high, since it concerns a new product with no established customer base, in the absence of supplementary revenue sources for the venture (2.5).
E. The ratio between fixed and working capital for which the requested financing is intended is assessed positively, as it mainly concerns the purchase of raw materials and the construction of a fixed asset (e-shop) (4.2).
F. The ratio of the requested financing amount to the venture’s turnover over the past year is assessed quite low, given the venture’s recent establishment and its purely trial activity so far (1.2).
G. The ratio of the requested financing amount to Co-Fund’s available financing capital (equal to 1/2) is assessed as below average, since it ties up a significant portion of the latter (2.2).
H. The proposal does not provide for the immediate creation of new jobs, and is therefore assessed with the lowest possible score (1.0).
I. Similarly, the criterion regarding the nature of the planned jobs cannot be applied, and is therefore assessed the same as the previous one (1.0).
J. The degree of partnership with other S.S.E. ventures is assessed as low, since the business plan does not stem from any joint planning, nor is it based on already established cooperative relationships with other S.S.E. ventures (1.8).
K. The requesting venture’s field of work is quite original, so the application scores very positively on the criterion of the geographic density of the field of work (5.0).
L. The venture’s time length of participation in Co-Fund’s financing community is very short, so it is assessed negatively (1.0).
M. The total amount of subscriptions paid by the requesting venture to Co-Fund’s fund exceeds the minimum solely due to the payment of the annual subscription, and does not exceed the contribution of most ventures participating in Co-Fund’s financing community. It is therefore assessed as below average (2.0).
N. The repayment timeframe of the requested financing is judged negatively, as it is expected to exceed three years (1.2).
O. The criterion of the number of financings the venture has received from Co-Fund in the past is assessed very positively, as the venture has not been financed before (5.0).
| Criteria | Score |
|---|---|
| Maturity of business proposal | 3.0 |
| Social utility | 4.8 |
| Ecological footprint | 5.0 |
| Risk assessment | 2.5 |
| Fixed / variable capital ratio of financing | 4.2 |
| Requested financing amount relative to last year’s turnover | 1.2 |
| Requested financing amount relative to available financing capital | 2.2 |
| Number of new jobs to financing capital | 1.0 |
| Type of jobs | 1.0 |
| Degree of collaboration / networking with other ventures | 1.8 |
| Geographic density of field of activity | 5.0 |
| Duration of the applying venture’s participation in Co-Fund’s funding community | 1.0 |
| Total amount of subscriptions paid by the applying venture to Co-Fund | 2.0 |
| Repayment timeline for the requested financing | 1.2 |
| Number of funding disbursements previously received by the applying venture from Co-Fund | 5.0 |
| Total | 40.8 / 75 |
