Co-Fund is announcing the results of the assessment of applications received under the 3rd funding call for SSE ventures in Greece (May – June 2025). As is standard practice, the assessment process followed the relevant provisions of Co-Fund’s internal regulations — specifically paragraphs 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4.
At the first stage of assessment, the General Assembly initially approved three of the five applications received in total as adequate and consistent with Co-Fund’s current risk-taking capacity. A fourth application, initially assessed as high-risk, was revised by the applying venture following discussion with the General Assembly and was subsequently approved by the latter.
The four ultimately approved applications total €25,000 cumulatively, exceeding the initially announced available capital of €20,000. The General Assembly, in accordance with paragraph 2.6 of Co-Fund’s internal regulations, decided to expand the call’s capital equally to €25,000, taking into account the additional capital available in the company’s fund as well as the overall quality of the approved applications.
Consequently, no vote was required among Co-Fund’s funding community members to determine priority in the implementation of the funding disbursements. The General Assembly nonetheless carried out the second stage of assessment of the approved applications as usual, with the aim of maximising transparency and more clearly presenting Co-Fund’s funding policy to community members and the wider public.
The detailed assessment of the applications follows:
Synallois
Urban Supply Cooperative for Solidarity Economy Website: https://synallois.org/
Activity
The venture is engaged in fair and solidarity trade, operating a general store with relevant goods in Thiseio, in the centre of Athens. The venture’s primary cooperation within the framework of fair and solidarity trade is with the Zapatista coffee cooperative Yachil Xojobal Chulchan. They import the coffee directly in raw form, process it, and sell it — both retail at their store and wholesale primarily to SSE ventures.
Funding Proposal
Working capital for the purchase of Zapatista coffee.
In keeping with the principles of fair and solidarity trade, 60% of the value of the annual coffee import is pre-paid approximately 6 months before arrival. The remaining 40% is paid upon arrival, together with the special consumption tax and VAT applicable to the full product. This condition creates very significant liquidity needs that the venture can no longer cover from its own resources. At the same time, the increase in the purchase price of coffee in recent years has further increased its financing needs. A potential grant from Co-Fund would provide significant relief in financing the coffee purchase. For this reason, the venture is requesting funding of €5,000.
General Assembly Assessment
A. The business proposal is assessed as mature, as it is entirely clear and has been implemented under similar terms many times in the past (5.0).
B. The social utility of the proposal is also assessed as high, thanks to the multiple social benefits of fair and solidarity trade (4.7).
C. The ecological footprint is initially assessed as quite high, since the coffee in question is cultivated under conditions of absolute respect for the natural environment and the enhancement of biodiversity. The need for transportation clearly has a negative impact on the ecological footprint, but given the constraints of any alternative, the overall footprint is assessed positively (4.8).
D. The risk of the proposal is estimated as very low, owing to the venture’s many years of successful operation and its consistently positive results in previous years (4.8).
E. The ratio of fixed to variable capital for which the requested funding is intended is assessed as low, given that the entire investment is earmarked for liquidity rather than the purchase of equipment (2.0).
F. The ratio of the requested funding to the venture’s turnover in the most recent year is very small and is therefore assessed very positively (5.0).
G. The ratio of the requested funding to the total capital of Co-Fund’s funding call (equal to ⅕) is assessed positively, as it leaves sufficient funding space for other ventures (4.3).
H. The number of planned new jobs is zero and is therefore assessed at the lowest possible score (1.0).
I. Similarly, the criterion regarding the nature of the planned jobs cannot be applied and is assessed accordingly (1.0).
J. The degree of collaboration with other SSE ventures is assessed as high, as the venture works closely with several SSE ventures (clients and suppliers) (5.0).
K. The presence of other SSE ventures with a similar field of activity in the same geographic area is assessed as moderate (2.5).
L. The duration of the venture’s participation in Co-Fund’s funding community dates back to its first year of operation and is therefore assessed very positively (4.8).
M. The total amount of subscriptions paid by the applying venture to Co-Fund’s fund is also assessed very positively, as it reflects a collective and an individual subscription, both above the minimum and of very significant duration (4.7).
N. The repayment timeline for the requested funding is assessed very positively, as it is estimated at less than one year (4.8).
O. The criterion regarding the number of funding disbursements the venture has previously received from Co-Fund is assessed lower than the other applications, as the venture has been funded once before in 2023 (2.8).
| Criteria | Score |
|---|---|
| Maturity of business proposal | 5.0 |
| Social utility | 4.7 |
| Ecological footprint | 4.8 |
| Risk assessment | 4.8 |
| Fixed / variable capital ratio of funding | 2.0 |
| Requested funding amount relative to last year’s turnover | 5.0 |
| Funding amount ratio to call capital | 4.3 |
| Number of new jobs by type / funding capital | 1.0 |
| Nature of jobs | 1.0 |
| Degree of collaboration / networking with other ventures | 5.0 |
| Geographic density of field of activity | 2.5 |
| Duration of the applying venture’s participation in Co-Fund’s funding community | 4.8 |
| Total amount of subscriptions paid by the applying venture to Co-Fund | 4.7 |
| Repayment timeline for the requested funding | 4.8 |
| Number of funding disbursements previously received by the applying venture from Co-Fund | 2.8 |
| Total | 57.3 / 75 |
Open Lab Athens
Urban Non-Profit Company Website: https://olathens.gr/
Activity
The venture is a research collective engaged in the design and development of technologies to support SSE, innovative social models, and grassroots self-organisation. It seeks to achieve this through participatory research and the development of open technologies in collaboration with research institutions and universities.
Funding Proposal
Working capital for the implementation of the CORPUS project.
The venture is participating in the implementation of the CORPUS project, carried out within the framework of the EU’s DUT (Driving Urban Transition) initiative. The project concerns the development of community laboratories (makerspaces, Urban Living Labs) and participatory urban regeneration in Aigaleo and Turin. It is being implemented in collaboration with the Municipality of Aigaleo, the University of Turin, and the University of Delft. Participation is reimbursed gradually by the General Secretariat for Research and Innovation of the Greek Ministry of Development upon completion of activities, making it necessary to identify sources of liquidity for its implementation.
General Assembly Assessment
A. The business proposal is assessed as mature, as it is sufficiently clear and specific (5.0).
B. The social utility of the proposal is assessed as high, as it promotes community cooperation and urban sustainability (4.7).
C. The ecological footprint of the proposal is assessed positively, as beyond intellectual work it includes low-impact urban interventions (3.7).
D. The risk of the proposal is estimated as particularly low, owing to its inclusion within a sufficiently large EU funding programme that is already under implementation (5.0).
E. The ratio of fixed to variable capital for which the requested funding is intended is assessed as moderate, as the purchase of equipment accounts for the smaller part of the funding (2.2).
F. The ratio of the requested funding to the venture’s turnover in the most recent year is sufficiently small and is therefore assessed as moderately positive (3.8).
G. The ratio of the requested funding to the total capital of Co-Fund’s funding call (equal to ⅕) is assessed positively, as it leaves sufficient funding space for other ventures (4.3).
H. The number of planned new jobs is zero and is therefore assessed at the lowest possible score (1.0).
I. Similarly, the criterion regarding the nature of the planned jobs cannot be applied and is assessed accordingly (1.0).
J. The degree of collaboration with other SSE ventures is assessed as high, as the venture collaborates with two other SSE ventures within the framework of the submitted proposal (4.0).
K. We are not aware of another SSE venture primarily engaged in research in the Municipality of Athens, and the application is therefore assessed very positively on the criterion of geographic density of the field of activity (4.7).
L. The duration of the venture’s participation in Co-Fund’s funding community is assessed as relatively positive, given that one member has been among the first members of the community, while other members recently began their subscriptions to Co-Fund (3.2).
M. The total amount of subscriptions paid by the applying venture to Co-Fund’s fund is assessed as outstandingly positive, as it reflects many years of contributions from one member and several annual — above-minimum — subscriptions from other members of the venture (5.0).
N. The repayment timeline for the requested funding is assessed as moderate, as it is estimated to exceed one year (2.3).
O. The criterion regarding the number of funding disbursements the venture has previously received from Co-Fund is assessed very positively, as the venture has not been funded before (5.0).
| Criteria | Score |
|---|---|
| Maturity of business proposal | 5.0 |
| Social utility | 4.2 |
| Ecological footprint | 3.7 |
| Risk assessment | 5.0 |
| Fixed / variable capital ratio of funding | 2.2 |
| Requested funding amount relative to last year’s turnover | 3.8 |
| Funding amount ratio to call capital | 4.3 |
| Number of new jobs by type / funding capital | 1.0 |
| Nature of jobs | 1.0 |
| Degree of collaboration / networking with other ventures | 4.0 |
| Geographic density of field of activity | 4.7 |
| Duration of the applying venture’s participation in Co-Fund’s funding community | 3.2 |
| Total amount of subscriptions paid by the applying venture to Co-Fund | 5.0 |
| Repayment timeline for the requested funding | 2.3 |
| Number of funding disbursements previously received by the applying venture from Co-Fund | 5.0 |
| Total | 54.4 / 75 |
Terra Verde
Social Cooperative Enterprise Website: http://www.terraverde-chania.gr
Activity
The venture is engaged in the trade of fair and solidarity food products and in the employment and empowerment of people with disabilities, through its store in Chania.
Funding Proposal
Working capital to cover operating expenses until disbursements from the Operational Programme «Crete» 2021–2027.
The venture plans to further develop its activity with the aim of increasing revenues, maintaining and expanding its customer base, and ensuring access to employment for people with disabilities — with the opening of two part-time positions. The planned investment includes the operation of a second branch in the city of Chania, which will sell unpackaged goods in accordance with the principles of the zero-waste movement. A potential grant from Co-Fund would provide the necessary liquidity for the branch’s operation (equipment purchases and operating costs) until funds are disbursed from the «Crete» 2021–2027 programme.
General Assembly Assessment
A. The business proposal is assessed as adequate, with minor gaps in the projections regarding the future return on the investment (4.0).
B. The social utility of the proposal is assessed as particularly high, as it combines the benefits of fair and solidarity trade with the promotion of zero-waste consumption patterns and the employment of people with disabilities (5.0).
C. The ecological footprint of the proposal is assessed as very positive, as it contributes to the reduction of generated waste (4.7).
D. The risk of the proposal is assessed as moderate, despite its inclusion in a regional funding programme, as it encompasses ambitious targets and a significant total amount (3.3).
E. The ratio of fixed to variable capital for which the requested funding is intended is assessed as moderate, as the purchase of equipment accounts for the smaller part of the funding (2.2).
F. The ratio of the requested funding to the venture’s turnover in the most recent year is sufficiently small and is therefore assessed as positive (4.0).
G. The ratio of the requested funding to the total capital of Co-Fund’s funding call (equal to 2/5) is double that of the other applications in the call, and is therefore assessed more negatively (2.3).
H. The proposal provides for the creation of two new part-time positions and is therefore assessed as moderately positive (3.8).
I. The nature of the planned jobs is assessed as relatively negative, as they do not constitute full-time, equal cooperative positions (2.3).
J. The degree of collaboration with other SSE ventures within the framework of the proposal is assessed as moderate (3.3).
K. There is no other SSE venture engaged in fair and solidarity trade and the employment of people with disabilities in the Prefecture of Chania, and the application is therefore assessed very positively on the criterion of geographic density of the field of activity (5.0).
L. The duration of the venture’s participation in Co-Fund’s funding community is considerably shorter than other ventures and is therefore assessed as moderate (2.7).
M. The total amount of subscriptions paid by the applying venture to Co-Fund’s fund is clearly lower than that of the other applying ventures and is therefore assessed negatively (1.2).
N. The repayment timeline for the requested funding is assessed as moderate, as it is estimated at approximately one year (3.2).
O. The criterion regarding the number of funding disbursements the venture has previously received from Co-Fund is assessed very positively, as the venture has not been funded before (5.0).
| Criteria | Score |
|---|---|
| Maturity of business proposal | 4.0 |
| Social utility | 5.0 |
| Ecological footprint | 4.7 |
| Risk assessment | 3.3 |
| Fixed / variable capital ratio of funding | 2.2 |
| Requested funding amount relative to last year’s turnover | 4.0 |
| Funding amount ratio to call capital | 2.3 |
| Number of new jobs by type / funding capital | 3.8 |
| Nature of jobs | 2.3 |
| Degree of collaboration / networking with other ventures | 3.3 |
| Geographic density of field of activity | 5.0 |
| Duration of the applying venture’s participation in Co-Fund’s funding community | 2.7 |
| Total amount of subscriptions paid by the applying venture to Co-Fund | 1.2 |
| Repayment timeline for the requested funding | 3.2 |
| Number of funding disbursements previously received by the applying venture from Co-Fund | 5.0 |
| Total | 52.0 / 75 |
I Treli Rodia (The Wild Pomegranate)
Social Integration Cooperative Enterprise Website: https://trelirodia.gr/
Activity
The venture is engaged in the cultivation of aromatic, medicinal, and insect-repellent plants, combined with the social and vocational reintegration of people with addiction issues. The venture operates in the Municipality of Thermi in the Prefecture of Thessaloniki and the wider region of Central Macedonia.
Funding Proposal
Working capital for the development of a biofarming educational programme space, pending the disbursement of the first instalment from the Regional Operational Programme of Central Macedonia.
The venture plans to develop two new educational programmes: a vocational training and empowerment programme for individuals belonging to vulnerable social groups, and an environmental education programme for children, aimed at raising awareness of biofarming, clean food, and an ecological way of life. A potential grant from Co-Fund would significantly facilitate progress in the construction of the educational space and the purchase of the necessary equipment, ensuring the timely launch of its operation.
General Assembly Assessment
A. The business proposal is assessed as adequate, with certain gaps in the projections regarding the future return on the investment (3.7).
B. The social utility of the proposal is assessed as particularly high, as it combines biofarming with education for children and the vocational reintegration of vulnerable individuals (5.0).
C. The ecological footprint of the proposal is assessed as very positive, as it promotes environmentally beneficial farming practices among the general public and especially children (5.0).
D. The risk of the proposal is assessed as relatively high, as it is effectively a new venture without an established track record and stable turnover (2.3).
E. The ratio of fixed to variable capital for which the requested funding is intended is assessed positively, as it primarily concerns the purchase of equipment and the preparation of the workspace (4.2).
F. The ratio of the requested funding to the venture’s turnover in the most recent year is large, since the first year of formal operation did not include substantive revenues. Accordingly, this is assessed negatively (1.0).
G. The ratio of the requested funding to the total capital of Co-Fund’s funding call (equal to ⅕) is assessed positively, as it leaves sufficient funding space for other ventures (4.3).
H. The proposal provides for the creation of two new jobs and is therefore assessed positively (5.0).
I. The nature of the planned jobs is assessed as moderate, as they constitute dependent employment with the prospect of evolving into equal cooperative positions (3.0).
J. The degree of collaboration with other SSE ventures within the framework of the proposal is assessed as moderate (2.8).
K. The applying venture’s field of activity is quite original, and the application is therefore assessed very positively on the criterion of geographic density of the field of activity (4.7).
L. The duration of the venture’s participation in Co-Fund’s funding community is the shortest among the applying ventures and is therefore assessed negatively (1.0).
M. The total amount of subscriptions paid by the applying venture to Co-Fund’s fund is clearly above the minimum, albeit lower than other ventures due to its short participation period. Accordingly, this is assessed as moderately negative (2.0).
N. The repayment timeline for the requested funding is assessed negatively, as it is estimated to potentially reach up to two years (1.2).
O. The criterion regarding the number of funding disbursements the venture has previously received from Co-Fund is assessed very positively, as the venture has not been funded before (5.0).
| Criteria | Score |
|---|---|
| Maturity of business proposal | 3.7 |
| Social utility | 5.0 |
| Ecological footprint | 5.0 |
| Risk assessment | 2.3 |
| Fixed / variable capital ratio of funding | 4.2 |
| Requested funding amount relative to last year’s turnover | 1.0 |
| Funding amount ratio to call capital | 4.3 |
| Number of new jobs by type / funding capital | 5.0 |
| Nature of jobs | 3.0 |
| Degree of collaboration / networking with other ventures | 2.8 |
| Geographic density of field of activity | 4.7 |
| 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 funding | 1.2 |
| Number of funding disbursements previously received by the applying venture from Co-Fund | 5.0 |
| Total | 50.2 / 75 |
