GHG Emissions Report FY 2013 Date 5 February 2014
This document is solely for the use of professionals and is not for general public distribution. The value of an investment and the income from it can fall as well as rise and you may not get back the amount originally invested.
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Corporate operations ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Supply chain ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Climate change mitigation 2013 ........................................................................................................................ 2
Technology Strategy Board ........................................................................................................................... 2
EP&T energy monitoring system ................................................................................................................... 2
CarbonNeutral status ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Henderson international GHG emissions (excluding London) .......................................................................... 7
Global waste analysis .................................................................................................................................. 11
London waste analysis ................................................................................................................................. 12
2013-2015 carbon project portfolio ................................................................................................................ 0
Project example: Andipatti Wind Power ........................................................................................................ 1
Appendix D – Technology Strategies Board, Final report Non-Domestic Buildings – Phase 2 – Buildings in Operation ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Appendix E – Verco, Green Sky Thinking ......................................................................................................... 5
Appendix F – Henderson, 201 Bishopsgate Building Performance Evaluations – Building User Survey ......... 6
Important information ................................................................................................................................. 7
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Forward
In this GHG (Greenhouse Gas) Emissions report produced by Greenstone, we have included an analysis of our Scope 1, 2 and 3 GHG emissions for 2013 associated with our corporate operation. GHG reduction activities have focused on larger offices but innovative building efficiency initiatives and lessons learned have been communicated to all offices during 2013. While some travel is unavoidable, we continue to monitor travel behaviour across the business and usage of our video conferencing facility to replace avoidable travel as outlined in the mitigation section below, contributing to a reduction in our business travel emissions in 2013.
Our efforts resulted in an improved CDP score in 2013, reflecting the growing maturity of our climate change strategy and commitment across the business. We have also extended our CarbonNeutral® status until the end of 2015, purchasing credits from a wide range of projects in Europe, America and Asia.
In the context of our evolving business and pursuit of new opportunities, we have maintained a focus on delivering our business in the most efficient way possible. This has included the reuse of materials and building assets on a major office refit programme to accommodate the establishment of a new Henderson-TIAA-Cref joint venture, TIAA-Henderson Real Estate (TH Real Estate), minimising the natural resource and GHG emissions impact of the project.
Our range of building efficiency and business travel initiatives have resulted in a reduced GHG footprint in 2013, an achievement considering our focus on developing business outside the UK. We will continue to implement and share examples of best practice across the business in 2014.
Fred Kinahan
Director of Facilities, Henderson Global Investors
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Introduction
Climate Change is actively considered by key parts of the business on an on-going basis. This annual report is disclosed to all staff, including senior management. A summary taken from this report is signed off by the Board and forms part of the annual report to shareholders.
Corporate operations
Henderson manages operational climate change risk through the measurement of its resource consumption and associated carbon emissions using Greenstone’s online solution to which data is uploaded monthly from each global office. The ongoing analysis helps Henderson to identify trends and risks that can be mitigated through an internal programme of reduction activities.
Supply chain
Henderson recognises that it can have an impact beyond its own carbon footprint by engaging more with its network of suppliers. In 2013 Henderson implemented a requirement for its suppliers to enter their carbon emissions, waste and water footprint data into Greenstone’s SupplierPortal solution with other ‘responsible sourcing’ information.
Climate change mitigation 2013
Henderson has engaged in a range of mitigation activities in 2013 that are expected to increase the efficiency of operating its buildings.
Technology Strategy Board
Verco, an environmental consultancy firm, was appointed by the UK Government to facilitate an Environmental Working Group that is a three year study into practical ways to increase the operational efficiency of buildings. This included engagement with staff to determine which initiatives will have the greatest impact and return on investment. It also considered how tenants and landlords can work more closely together to ensure efficiencies included in the original building design can be followed through in its operation. For further information see Appendices C – F.
EP&T energy monitoring system
EP&T is also working with Henderson and other tenants at the UK Bishopsgate office to implement an energy monitoring system and identify additional energy efficiency opportunities. The system and advice provided by EP&T will support better informed decision making on where to invest resources to reduce energy consumption, GHG emissions and cost.
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
CarbonNeutral status
Henderson has achieved CarbonNeutral® company certification by sourcing carbon offsets from a geographically and technically diverse range of emission reduction projects since 2007. In 2013 Henderson has maintained its CarbonNeutral® company certification and details of Henderson’s offsets that are applicable to our 2013 GHG footprint and future years are outlined in Appendix B.
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Methodology The GHG emissions have been calculated according to the principles of the GHG Protocol, using business data gathered by each office and uploaded to Greenstone’s carbon management solution.
From 2013 Henderson has moved from using the GHG Protocol’s emission factors for the United Kingdom and France to more accurate emission factors provided by the governments of France and the UK. For its London and Edinburgh offices, Henderson now uses emission factors provided by Defra and for its Paris office it uses emission factors from the Association Bilan Carbone.
The waste emission factors from the GHG Protocol reference EU Commission factors have not been updated since 2001. The Defra emissions factors are from 2012 and reflect a better understanding of the impact of emissions from the waste management process in the UK.
The 2012 GHG emissions used for comparative purposes in this report have been revised to 4,924 from 5,120 tCO2e since the 2012 GHG Emissions Report was first published in January 2013. This follows removal of waste emissions from our corporate report and an update of emission factors to ensure a comparable year on year analysis. A separate section on Henderson’s waste generation is included in this report.
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Henderson GHG emissions footprint Henderson’s GHG emissions footprint includes GHG emissions across all offices and the three principal GHG Scopes. The GHG emissions have been calculated based on business data gathered by each office and uploaded to Greenstone’s solution. A detailed breakdown of GHG emissions for each office and business activity can be found in Appendix A.
Henderson 2013 GHG emissions (tCO2e) for Corporate Reporting purposes Gross
Scope 1: Natural gas 26
Scope 2: Electricity 2,197
Scope 3: Business travel, hotel stays, freight 2,543
Total 4,766
Table 1
Henderson 2013 GHG emissions (tCO2e) for offsetting purposes Gross Offset Net
Scope 1: Natural gas 26 0 26
Scope 2: Electricity 2,197 1,756* 441
Scope 3: Business travel, hotel stays, freight 2,543 0 2,543
Scope 3: Waste 167 0 167
Carbon credits supplied by The CarbonNeutral Company n/a 3,177 -3177
Total 4,933 4,933 0
Remaining carbon credits in our portfolio supplied by The CarbonNeutral Company
n/a 4,090 n/a
Table 2
*London electricity supply offset on procurement
The corporate reporting figure of 4,766 tCO2e represents a 3% decrease on the revised GHG emissions calculated for 2012.
The pie chart and table below provide a breakdown of GHG emissions for each data source across the global business.
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Figure 1. Breakdown of GHG emissions across Henderson’s global business.
GHG emission source
GHG emissions (tCO2e) 2013
% of total for 2013
% difference from 2012
Electricity 2,197 46.10% +5%
Natural Gas 26 0.55% -10%
Air Business Travel 2,057 43.16% -10%
Road Business Travel
231 4.85% -5%
Rail Business Travel 22 0.46% -54%
Hotel Stays 183 3.84% +7%
Air Freight 43 0.90% -14%
Road Freight 7 0.15% -37%
TOTAL 4,766 100% -3%
Table 3
Figure 1 and Table 3 illustrate how the total GHG emissions are broken down for 2013. Electricity is the largest contributor at 2,197 tCO2e, representing 46% of total emissions and a 5% increase on 2012. Air business travel represents the second largest contributor at 2,057 tCO2e, a decrease of 10% on 2012.
46.09%
0.55%
43.18%
4.84%0.46%
0.89% 0.15% 3.85%
Electricity (Grid)
Gaseous Fuels
Air Business Travel
Road Travel
Rail Travel
Air Freight
Road Freight
Hotel Stays
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Henderson international GHG emissions (excluding London)
London is the largest office across Henderson’s business, accounting for 58% of total GHG emissions. It is therefore useful to view Henderson’s emission profile excluding London to analyse the performance of the global offices in more detail. The table includes the GHG emissions per employee in each office.
Henderson office 2013 GHG emissions
(tCO2e)
% of 2013 total
including London (4,766)
% Diff from 2012
2013 Number of employees
2013 GHG emissions
per employee
(tCO2e)
Amsterdam 38 0.8% 0% 5 7.6
Beijing 85 1.8% +156% 10 8.5
Edinburgh 16 0.3% -18% 7 2.4
Frankfurt 209 4.4% -30% 39 5.4
Hong Kong 72 1.5% -16% 5 14.3
Luxembourg 24 0.5% +42% 15 1.6
Madrid 26 0.5% +30% 7 3.7
Milan 91 1.9% -13% 10 9.1
New Delhi 31 0.6% -38% 3 10.2
Paris 28 0.6% -66% 17 1.6
Singapore 608 12.8% +9% 43 14.1
Sydney 24 0.5% -53% 12 2.0
Tokyo 58 1.2% -5% 19 3.0
United States 673 14.1% +29% 91 7.4
Vienna 16 0.3% -29% 6 2.7
Zurich 6 0.1% +45% 4 1.5
TOTAL 2,005 42.0% +1.94% 293 6.8
Table 4
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Figure 3. Stacked chart to show GHG emissions associated with premises, business travel and freight for each office, excluding London.
Consistent with Henderson’s business operating model, Figure 3 highlights that the GHG emissions of the regional offices tend to have a higher proportion of emissions associated with business travel, compared to the emissions from operating their buildings. This reflects the business development focus and the geographic spread covered by these regional offices. This also contrasts with the footprint of the London office which has a higher proportion of emissions associated with operating buildings compared to business travel.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Freight
Business Travel
Premises
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Henderson London office emissions
In 2013 the London office accounted for 58% of Henderson’s global GHG emissions with 2,762 tCO2e.
Category Emission Source GHG Emissions
(tCO2e) % difference from
2012
Premises Electricity (Grid) 1,756 +7%
Business Travel
Air Business Travel 895
-23% Road Travel 2
Rail Travel 1
Hotel Stays 77
Freight Air Freight 28
-22% Road Freight 4
All Total 2,762 -7%
Table 5
Figure 4: Bar chart to show GHG emissions associated with premises, business travel and freight for the London office.
When measured using the intensity metric of emissions per employee, London office emissions for 2013 were 3.2 tCO2e per employee (based on a figure of 865 employees).
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Premises Business Travel Freight
London (tCO2e)
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Henderson global GHG emissions trend analysis The chart and table below provide a three year trend analysis of Henderson’s global GHG emissions across premises, business travel and freight data sources.
Figure 5: Stacked chart to show trend of Henderson’s global GHG emissions in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Year
GHG Emissions (tCO2e)
Premises Business
Travel Freight Total Employees
Total / Employee
2011 2,072 2,477 62 4,611 1,175 3.92
2012 2,115 2,748 61 4,924 1,171 4.20
2013 2,223 2,493 50 4,766 1,158 4.12
Table 6
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
2011 2012 2013
tCO
2e
Year
Freight
Business Travel
Premises
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Waste generation We monitor the waste generated at each office and how it is treated, with a commitment to recycle wherever possible. We also calculate the associated GHG emissions from our waste generation and treatment for offsetting purposes.
Global waste analysis
The table below outlines the amount of waste generated by each Henderson office in 2013 and compared to 2012 where data was available.
Henderson office 2012 Waste generated (tonnes)
2013 Waste generated (tonnes)
2013 % difference from 2012
Amsterdam 0.30 0.30 0%
Beijing 0.45 0.63 +40%
Edinburgh 0.48 0.72 +49%
Frankfurt 3.50 6.00 +71%
Hong Kong 11.00 11.20 +2%
London 171.17 165.00 -4%
Luxembourg 0.93 1.12 +21%
Madrid 0.81 0.81 0%
Milan 0.46 0.13 -71%
New Delhi 0.09 0.12 33%
Paris 0.78 0.33 -58%
Singapore 2.79 4.31 +54%
Sydney 0.06 No data collected N/A
Tokyo 1.84 0.93 -50%
United States 5.45 No data collected N/A
Vienna 0.50 0.30 -40%
Zurich 0.42 0.32 -25%
Total 201.03 192.06 -4.5%
Table 7
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
London waste analysis
London generated 86% of the firm’s waste in 2013. Table 8 and Figure 6 below outline the breakdown of London waste by type and how each waste type was treated.
Waste type 2013 Waste
generated (tonnes) Treatment type
Cardboard 9.82 Recycled – closed loop
Food and Garden (Mixed) 15.4 Composting
Glass 0.774 Recycled – closed loop
Municipal (Mixed) 81.0 Energy from waste combustion
Paper 0.155 Recycled – closed loop
Paper (Confidential) 57.3 Recycled – closed loop
Metal (Mixed scrap) 0.003 Recycled – closed loop
Toner Cartridges 0.026 Recycled – open loop
WEEE (Batteries - Consumer) 0.072 Recycled – open loop
WEEE (Mixed) 0.142 Recycled – open loop
Wood 0.236 Recycled – closed loop
Table 8
Figure 6
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Appendix A: Henderson GHG emissions detailed breakdown 2013
Office Emission Source (tCO2e)
Electricity
(Grid) Gaseous
Fuels
Air Business
Travel
Road Travel
Rail Travel
Air Freight
Road Freight
Hotel Stays
2013 Total
% of Total
2012 Total
% change
Employees GHG /
employee
Amsterdam 15.72 0.00 8.33 10.88 0.58 0.00 0.000 2.5 38 1% 38 0% 5 7.60
Beijing 23.74 0.00 40.40 2.03 3.45 0.10 0.000 14.9 85 2% 33 156% 10 8.46
Dublin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 N/A N/A 6 N/A N/A N/A
Edinburgh 4.00 11.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 16 0% 19 -18% 7 0.40
Frankfurt 83.88 2.19 78.17 32.47 4.51 0.04 0.013 8.0 209 4% 300 -30% 39 41.85
Hong Kong 18.98 6.71 30.78 7.73 0.70 1.72 0.000 5.0 72 2% 85 -16% 5 0.08
London 1,755.70 0.00 895.00 2.00 0.83 27.84 4.050 76.9 2,762 58% 2,956 -7% 865 184.15
Luxembourg 10.21 0.00 3.15 0.36 0.01 9.90 0.000 0.5 24 1% 17 42% 15 3.44
Madrid 5.91 0.00 9.66 1.45 4.98 0.01 2.737 1.0 26 1% 20 30% 7 2.58
Milan 52.23 0.00 7.37 26.83 1.28 0.25 0.095 2.6 91 2% 104 -13% 10 30.23
New Delhi 19.55 0.00 10.79 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.1 31 1% 49 -38% 3 1.80
Paris 4.83 0.00 5.69 15.64 0.43 0.40 0.023 1.4 28 1% 82 -65% 17 0.66
Singapore 63.44 0.00 485.04 10.20 0.00 2.03 0.006 47.4 608 13% 556 9% 43 50.67
Sydney 2.01 0.00 21.74 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 24 1% 51 -53% 12 1.26
Tokyo 25.89 0.00 24.02 0.39 5.00 0.22 0.032 2.0 58 1% 61 -5% 19 0.63
United States
108.15 0.00 428.00 116.84 0.05 0.00 0.000 20.0 673 14% 520 29% 91 112.17
Vienna 1.97 5.60 5.18 2.75 0.00 0.02 0.000 0.5 16 0% 22 -27% 6 4.00
Zurich 0.39 0.00 4.26 0.81 0.02 0.00 0.000 0.6 6 0% 4 45% 4 0.01
Total 2,197 26 2,058 231 22 43 7 183 4,766 100% 4,924 -3% 1,158 4.12
Table 9
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Appendix B – GHG emissions offsetting Henderson’s GHG emissions management strategy is based on a measure, manage, reduce and offset approach. Since 2005, Henderson has maintained its position as a CarbonNeutral company. This is achieved by minimising corporate emissions and offsetting those that are unavoidable through a range of emission reduction projects around the world. This means that for every tonne of CO2e produced, an equivalent amount is offset in projects, all of which are validated and verified to global standards.
Henderson’s 2013 portfolio includes projects located across Asia, South America, North America and Europe, aligned with the geographic spread of the business.
2013-2015 carbon project portfolio
The table below outlines the carbon reduction projects that comprise Henderson’s investment portfolio.
Project Name & Technology
Location Project Standard
tCO2 Project Update
Dalaman Run-of-River Hydro Power
Turkey VCS 728 This project is still active and generating renewable electricity.
Darkwoods Forest Carbon
Canada VCS 500 Recently, the project has also moved to monitor and report upon the project’s non-carbon benefits, releasing a Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Description, under the CCB standards, in July 2013 (however, the project has not yet finalised the CCB validation).
Fiscalini Farms Methane Capture
USA CAR 500 This project is still active capturing methane form agricultural waste at the Fiscaline Farms.
Garcia River Forest Project
USA CAR 500 This project is still active. Since the 2011 verification, there have been no changes in the nature of the project.
Puerto Montt Thermal Energy
Chile VCS + CDM
500 This project is still active and the project has subsequently registered with the CDM.
Sterksel Biogas Germany VCS 272 This project is still active and the group of farms are still operational generating power from the combustion of anaerobically produced methane from manure.
Songyuan Wind Power
China VCS + CDM
3,000 This project is still active and generating renewable electricity.
Andipatti Wind Power India VCS + CDM
3,000 This project is still active and generating renewable electricity.
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Project example: Andipatti Wind Power
Region: India
Project type: Renewable Energy
Standard: The Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and Clean Development Mechanism, (CDM)
This wind farm consists of 30 Vestas turbines, each of capacity of 1.65 MW, generating approximately 100,000 MWh of clean renewable electricity annually. This reduces CO2 emissions by displacing electricity, which would have otherwise been drawn primarily from fossil fuel power stations; subsequently, the Andipatti Wind Power Project generates 90,000 tonnes of emissions reductions on average per year.
In addition to the emission reduction benefits, the project indirectly improves the overall local air quality as it does not incur the environmental pollution (such as releasing sulphur dioxide) or solid waste problems associated with coal-fired power plants. Unlike coal plants, wind farms also don’t require water during the power generation process.
The project has also contributed to the local economy and livelihood of residents through the creation of jobs - approximately 15 people are employed full time for operational roles while 5-10 work in field security. The planning and commissioning of the wind farm required approximately an additional 50 workers for road and power infrastructure construction, turbine erection and commissioning and managing operations. The project held a stakeholder meeting with local villagers and residents and the survey illustrated that no adverse comments were received.
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Appendix C – Architects Journal - The challenge of the performance gap faced by 201 Bishopsgate
The challenge of the performance gap faced by 201 Bishopsgate
One of the penultimate Green Sky Thinking events last week, was hosted by Henderson Global and British Land at their BREEAM Excellent 201 Bishopsgate office building.
The breakfast talk entitled ‘Occupying a BREEAM Excellent building: ensuring reality lives up to design’ looked at the challenges in overcoming the performance gap which they have faced on the building. Speakers included Justin Snoxall of British Land, Dave Worthington from Verco, and Fred Kinahan of Henderson Global.
British Land, the landlords for the Broadgate estate, within which 201 Bishopsgate sits, has set targets to reduce the carbon emissions of their building stock by 40 per cent by 2015.
201 Bishopsgate was completed in 2008, and was occupied in March 2009. The building achieved a 29 per cent better performance than that required by Part L. It was this building performance that was a key driver for Henderson Global agreeing to occupy the building. However, once they had moved in, they realised that it was not actually achieving this level of energy reduction.
Justin Snoxall says they found a number of environmental issues after the occupation of the building, including:
Landlord metering was not integrated with occupier metering
Energy consumption was greater than designed
Since realising that the metering was causing issues with how the energy efficiency of the building was monitored, British Land brought in a process integrating the metering across their whole portfolio on the Broadgate estate and this has been used to better manage the building efficiency.
Dave Worthington from sustainability consultancy Verco, was appointed to carry out post occupancy evaluation of the building. Funded by the Technology Strategy Board (TSB), the building has been monitored for two years. The TSB also provided them with additional funding to look into how out of hours energy use impacts on the performance gap.
Alongside assessing the performance of the building, the post occupancy evaluation also aims to answer the following questions:
How energy efficient can a high spec, highly glazed building be?
What are the effects of tenant engagement?
How is energy consumed out of hours?
Worthington says, that from previous studies of buildings he has found ‘good buildings continue to get better and bad buildings continue to get worse’ which leads him to have a lot of hope for 201 Bishopsgate.
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
The final year of data collection ended in March 2013. Initial data is showing that the energy use for the building is very complicated.
‘There isn’t just one meter showing energy consumption for the whole building. This makes it very complex – especially to make sense of the data’, says Worthington.
‘IT consumption has gone up since the building was designed ten years ago, and this will also have an influence on the performance gap’, he adds.
After testing the façade it has been found to be performing better than designed. There is a lack of correlation between solar gain and energy consumption, showing it is what goes on inside the building which is affecting energy consumption rather than its design and construction.
Fred Kinahan from the building’s tenant Henderson Global, spoke about the building user surveys which have been conducted. These asked questions about the building, noise, comfort, lighting, the working environment, control over the internal environment of the building and the methods used to travel to work.
The building performed very well overall in these building user surveys. Overall comfort and satisfaction within the building was excellent. Where the building performance did fall down, was the internal air temperature – users reported that the building is too hot in summer and too cold during the winter, with temperature varying throughout the day. ‘This has highlighted that there is still work to be done on how the glazing and façade performs compared to how people feel within the building’ says Kinahan.
The talk gave details of both sides of the story – how those using the building actually feel, and the energy consumption of the building.
It was good to hear a developer open up about the fact that their building was not performing as expected, especially as part of Green Sky Thinking, where the ethos is to share and disseminate information on sustainable building practices. It is only if we really interrogate our buildings and look at their performance that we can address the issue of the performance gap.
Source:
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/footprint/occupying-a-breeam-excellent-building/8646895.article
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Appendix D – Technology Strategies Board, Final report Non-Domestic
Buildings – Phase 2 – Buildings in Operation
450027 201 Bishopsgate POE Report_Final_anonymised.pdf
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Appendix E – Verco, Green Sky Thinking
CONFIDENTIAL Verco Green Sky Thinking 180413.pdf
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Appendix F – Henderson, 201 Bishopsgate Building Performance
Evaluations – Building User Survey
Henderson-Verco EWG 170113.pptx
GHG EMISSIONS REPORT
Henderson Global Investors
201 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 3AE
Tel: 020 7818 1818 Fax: 020 7818 1819
Important information
This document is intended solely for the use of professionals, defined as Eligible Counterparties or Professional Clients, and is not for general public distribution. Past performance is not a guide to future performance. The value of an investment and the income from it can fall as well as rise and you may not get back the amount originally invested. Tax assumptions and reliefs depend upon an investor’s particular circumstances and may change if those circumstances or the law change. If you invest through a third party provider you are advised to consult them directly as charges, performance and terms and conditions may differ materially. Nothing in this document is intended to or should be construed as advice. This document is not a recommendation to sell or purchase any investment. It does not form part of any contract for the sale or purchase of any investment. Any investment application will be made solely on the basis of the information contained in the Prospectus (including all relevant covering documents), which will contain investment restrictions. This document is intended as a summary only and potential investors must read the prospectus, and where relevant, the key investor information document before investing. Issued in the UK by Henderson Global Investors. Henderson Global Investors is the name under which Henderson Global Investors Limited (reg. no. 906355), Henderson Fund Management Limited (reg. no. 2607112), Henderson Investment Funds Limited (reg. no. 2678531), Henderson Investment Management Limited (reg. no. 1795354), Henderson Alternative Investment Advisor Limited (reg. no. 962757), Henderson Equity Partners Limited (reg. no.2606646), Gartmore Investment Limited (reg. no. 1508030), (each incorporated and registered in England and Wales with registered office at 201 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 3AE) are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority to provide investment products and services. Telephone calls may be recorded and monitored. Ref: 34S Reference
