It is a term which has fallen out of favor and usually used in a derogatory sense, and this is something which stops the prevents the different sides of politics discussing issues rationally.
With respect to the first definition, it is simply a neutral statement of use. Resources are there to be used, just as a computer is there to send email, or a cup is there for drinking out of.
With respect to the second definition: There is no such thing as exploitation between informed, consenting, rational, non-monopolistic parties.
Most people who protest about 'exploitation' of the poor and disadvantaged are unable to define exploitation. They will typically give examples of exchanges between different parties of different affluence. A worker in a poor country is paid forty cents per hour to make sports shoes which sell in a rich country for a hundred dollars, while a successful sports-person is paid millions to promote those shoes, and people scream about exploitation.
The common elements where this description is used tend to be that
Basic economics suggests that if one party in the supply chain is making huge profits (buying shoes cheaply and selling them for many times that with little overheads), then other business people would move into that market and do the same thing. They would compete for the business, undercut each other (buy for more, sell for less), and the margins would disappear.
This argument breaks down in the following situations:
In fact even with corrupt governments, the employees still benefit from the trade. Anyone who doesn't believe this may like to ask the employees themselves whether they would like their factory to close down so they can go back to what they were doing before. Very few of them would choose this.