How is the ancient concept of distributive justice understood in today's political debate?

Distributive justice is understood in today's political debate but it is not ancient at all but comes from the writings of John Rawls. He defines these justices as being fair. However it isn't really justice. Being fair is almost impossible in today's age. It means you can fairly dispute on a social basis. Trying to give everyone fairness requires others to react how we want them to, which would make them to be ideal individuals in our minds but there ideal may be different. Making this Health, skills and intelligence of other things can not be distributed to obtain fair outcomes for everyone unless it is taken from someone who may be more capable.

What are the underlying values that inform each side of the debate (e.g., values like wealth maximization and corporate social responsibility)?

Corporate social responsibility which is the underlying values from this side of the debate of significant impact of CSR in the change in climate. The debate relies on whether corporate CSR has an impact on climate change and if it does how is the government going to influence them.

Can these sides be reconciled and, if so, what must happen to bring them together? Does virtue have a role to play here; if so, how?

I believe that they can. Both the government and corporations are focused on the same end goal. Their goal is to achieve a high distributive justice for the state. Wealth maximization corporations should reconcile the welfare of their employees and customers. They do not limit themselves to the interests of their stockholders. I think establishing terms and conditions that are set in place and establish good relationships between all parties involved.

please give a detailed response on whether you agree or disagree with this point of view on ancient distributive justice