Nothing wrong with your statement

Those motivated by profit, the overwhelming majority, exploited their workers.

Apart from it is different to your first statement. I asked

"Are you saying that everyone believed that it made sound business sense to work children and adults to death?"

You replied

They believed it because it was true.

If you are now saying that not everyone believed it you have changed your stance and that is fine.

However, your statement

There were a tiny handful of reformers motivated by faith and/or philanthropy who were prepared to take less profit for the sake of their workers' wellbeing.

Is flawed. There were many reasons for them to look after their workers apart from the two that you quote. Take the case of Salt's Mill vs the nearby Lister Mill in Bradford. Salt looked after his workers and got better output from them. He also attracted the best workers. It is no coincidence that the 1890–91 strike which led to the formation of the Labour party was at Lister Mill and not at Salt's. Incidentaly, they did not take less profit. Their profit margins were lower but as their production was higher there was a net gain in profitability in a lot of cases.

It is now considered sound business practice to look after your workforce. It was no different then. It was just that only the few who were far sighted enough could see it.

DtG