give rise to a certain amount of frustration. the complainants naturally assume that the body that supervises banks - the hkma - can sort out their complaints against banks and recover financial losses. not surprisingly, not every complainant who discovers that we cannot do this is satisfied with the kind of explanation of our legal powers that i have given to you this evening. some get angry, and persist with their complaints. a few have taken the matter to other authorities. we have diverted staff resources to the time - consuming task of dealing with the rising number of complaints. but there is a limit to what we can do without affecting our main responsibilities under our mandate. clearly, something needs to be done. what are the options available? what are the steps to be taken? an obvious solution is to tackle the problem at its source by reducing the grounds for complaint. this requires the banks to maintain and improve the quality of their service and to improve their complaint - handling procedures so that customer dissatisfaction is dealt with quickly and decisively. initiatives by the banking industry in co - operation with the hkma have been taken over the past year to promote this process. they include the major revisions to the code of banking practice, setting out basic standards for personal banking services - and on issues such as debt collection - and placing an emphasis on transparency. they also include monitoring of compliance with the code by the hkma and specific guidance from the hkma on the handling and processing of complaints. in view of the recent surge in number of complaints, both the hkma and the industry associations have written to ais to urge that sufficient resources be devoted to handling of complaints and to remind them to step up monitoring of the performance of their debt collection agencies. we believe that these initiatives have been of some help in promoting higher standards and consistency in the handling of complaints. we shall supplement these initiatives as appropriate. but, no matter how high the quality of service, or how smooth and efficient the handling of dissatisfied customers may become, there will always be complaints and misunderstandings. in fact, quite often the more easy it is to complain, the more the complaints - even at times when the general quality of service may be improving. higher expectations on the part of the public, a greater complexity of services and products all contribute to a greater volume of complaints. less positively, a more difficult economic environment contributes to friction between banks and their customers, for example in the greater incidence of default on debt on the one hand and in the greater tendency

##g ’ s real estate management and decisions relating to large real estate investments. the gpfg is a long - term and responsible owner. our work on responsible investment is an integral part of the investment process. as of this year, the council on ethics issues recommendations on company exclusion directly to norges bank. norges bank ’ s executive board will on the basis of these recommendations assess exclusion against other tools in the exercise of ownership. the aim is to establish a unified chain of tools. climate change has been among the focus areas of management since 2006. our work on financial risk as a result of climate change is incorporated in the investment strategy and the financial objectives of the gpfg. the ministry of finance is now working to introduce a new behavioural criterion for companies ’ climate emissions in the guidelines for observation and exclusion. such a criterion must then be managed in line with the highest defined threshold for exclusion. bis central bankers ’ speeches it is important that the overriding principle for norges bank ’ s investment management continues to be that the gpfg is a responsible investor with a financial objective. if the gpfg is increasingly used as an instrument for pursuing objectives other than financial ones, it may reduce the clarity of the gpfg ’ s role as a financial investor. if the gpfg investment scope is subject to considerable restrictions, it may entail increased risk or lower returns. the management of the gpfg has been successful to date. the total return since the establishment of the gpfg amounts to more than nok 2 500 billion, or about 40 percent of gpfg capital. through its management, norges bank will continue to promote its overriding objective : to safeguard the fund ’ s assets over time. thank you for your attention. bis central bankers ’ speeches