Explain your concerns about the ethics of it. "How would this be perceived by others if word of this got out?"
Example: Cook Industries in Memphis Tn was one of the largest grain exporters in the US. Grain is sold by bulk weight and up to a certain percentage of what is sold can be, by law, "non-grain matter". That's a euphemism for rat poop, dead rats, etc. Their quality control system was so good that they had a much, much lower percentage of non-grain matter than allowed by law.
Some bean counter figured out that they were losing money because of this, so they had the janitors sweep stuff from the floors into the grain to get the non-grain matter up to the maximum allowable percentage. That would mean more profit!
It also meant a hell of a stink once that got into the news...
Here's another example. This is a photo of a 100% legal action according to the international laws of war:
(I've put a ||||| string into the url to prevent it from showing. You'll have to go look it up yourself because it's more graphic than a lot of people want to handle.)
It's very famous. It shows a South Vietnamese officer shooting a North Vietnamese spy/prisoner in the head. 100% legal and correct action. But that's not how the public received it. They came away with a totally different opinion.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images ||||| /2014/09/17/blogs/20140917-lens-adams-slide-JXW5/20140917-lens-adams-slide-JXW5-superJumbo.jpg
Make sure they understand that you don't want them to look bad if things don't work out well.
It's much harder for people to get mad at you when you're taking action to protect them.