Background and problem: The audit profession have developed through the history as the auditor’s associations has becoming rule-making bodies. Auditors has become an even more important function, which leads to greater responsibility and more obligations. Auditors are seen as a profession, and in exchange for them to perform their work they need to be seen to act in the public interest, being independent, act with integrity, having knowledge and competence and being dedicated to their work. It has also been seen in previous research that the professional appearance and behavior matters in the audit profession. Due to the scandals in the audit profession over time, the need for supervisory boards has increased. It is the Swedish Inspectorate of Auditors (SIA) that perform the supervision of the auditors in Sweden and ensure that existing rules and standards are being followed. In previous research of disciplinary cases issued by the SIA, it is seen that professional wrongdoings made by auditors was of importance. However, no previous research has investigated what types of professional wrongdoings auditors commits. Aim: The aim of this study is to explore what manifests unprofessionalism in the audit profession. Disciplinary cases concerning professional wrongdoings will be analyzed in order to understand how the Swedish audit profession’s supervisory body, the SIA, assesses cases that relates to unprofessional behavior. Methodology: Disciplinary cases concerning professional wrongdoings between 2006-2019 has been analyzed through a qualitative content analysis. The disciplinary cases have been sorted into categories concerning professional aspects that have emerged from previous research and auditor’s code of conduct. The result has been analyzed and compared to previous research and the frame of reference. Result and conclusions: The types of professional wrongdoings the auditors commit are Lack of independence, Shortcomings in the auditor’s own business, Lack of dedication, Not fulfilled requirements, Personal shortcomings, Not act in public interest and Lack of integrity. The types of professional wrongdoings occurred most frequently was Lack of independence, Shortcomings the auditor’s own business and Lack of dedication. Lack of independence had the highest share of the total disciplinary cases issued, while Shortcomings in the auditor’s own business seem to be the most severe one as it had the largest share of withdrawal of the auditor’s authorization or approval. Future studies: As this study only take the perspective of the SIA, it would be further interesting to see how the auditor’s perceive professionalism and what aspects they find important in order to obtain a professional role. Hence, conducting a study from the perspective of the professionals would give a more nuanced picture of what it means being a professional. In addition, it would also be interesting to investigate how the audited client’s perceive professionalism in the audit, and what aspects of professionalism they find important in order to obtain trust for the auditor.

I dagens samhälle finns det ett stort antal olika redovisningsstandarder och regelverk som företag måste förhålla sig till. Revisorerna granskar redovisningen för att se till att den upprätthåller den kvalitet som krävs för att den ska ge en rättvisande bild av företaget. Revisorerna ökar trovärdigheten på företags redovisning genom att granska årsredovisningar och den löpande förvaltningen. Det är Revisorsinspektionen (RI) som har som uppgift att granska de svenska revisorerna och ingripa mot revisorer som agerar oredligt. För att möjliggöra fortsatt utveckling av revisionsyrket måste de grundläggande orsakerna till revisionsmisslyckanden identifieras och revisionskvaliteten måste oavbrutet prövas. Syftet med studien är att analysera och granska samtliga disciplinärenden från RI som resulterat i en disciplinär åtgärd för en revisor. Studien ämnar vidare att identifiera de främsta orsakerna till revisionsmisslyckanden, samt att urskilja hur felaktigheterna skiljer sig åt mellan professionsfelaktigheter och processfelaktigheter. Undersökningen genomförs med hjälp av en induktiv innehållsanalys av samtliga disciplinärenden utfärdade av RI under tidsperioden 2016-2022. Studien analyserade totalt 234 olika ärenden med sammanlagt 959 antal felaktigheter. Studien kategoriserar datamaterialet och delar upp revisionsmisslyckanden i två olika huvudgrupper: processfelaktigheter och proffessionsfelaktigheter. Studien identifierade sex olika kategorier tillhörande revisionsprocessen och två kategorier hänförda till revisionsprofessionen. Av de totala felaktigheterna studien identifierade klassificerades 87 procent som processfelaktigheter. Undersökningen påvisar att den vanligaste orsaken till revisionsmisslyckanden är olika typer av granskningsfelaktigheter / Today’s society posits a great number of different accounting standards and regulations that companies need to adhere to. Financial statements are under scrutiny by auditors to ensure that it maintains sufficient quality that it accurately depicts the enterprise. Having auditors overseeing the company's accounts increases the company’s credibility. In Sweden auditors are overlooked by the Swedish Inspectorate of Auditors (SIA), whose purpose is to maintain audit quality, mainly by supervising and examining Swedish auditors. To ensure that audit as a profession continues to develop, audit failures need to be identified, and the auditors who make errors have to undertake disciplinary actions. The purpose of this study is to analyze and examine all disciplinary cases that have been reported from the SIA that have resulted in a disciplinary action. Furthermore, the study aims to identify the most common causes for audit failure, as well as discern how errors differ between professional misconduct and procedural errors. The survey was conducted with an inductive approach, examining all disciplinary cases issued by the SIA during the period 2016-2022. In total, 234 different cases were examined, with a sum of 959 different errors. The data was categorized into two main categories: procedural errors and professional misconduct. The study presents six different categories adhering to audit procedure, and two categories adhering to the audit profession. Out of all the errors identified by the study, 87 percent were classified as procedural errors. The most frequently identified error made by Swedish auditors were different types of examining errors.