It might have been a thoroughly entertaining spectacle but the implications of the mock ecocide trial could have grave implications for business and political decision makers.

The artificial court case, supported by the Hamilton Group, was held last week and played out as though the crime of ecocide had already been adopted by the United Nations.

To the cheers of a crammed supreme court, packed full of lawyers, businessmen and eco-activists, two chief executives were convicted of global felonies comparable to genocide and war crimes.

However, the actions of the accused had not led to a single loss of human life. Rather, the defendants faced the prospect of years behind bars due to the extensive environmental damage caused by their companies in extracting oil from Tar Sands in Canada. The principal victims of their crimes were migrating birds.

Although many observers would pass off this legal stunt as whimsical fantasy, it is not as absurd as it may seem. The organiser of the trial, barrister Polly Higgins, has proposed to the UN that ecocide – the mass destruction of ecosystems — should become the 5th international crime against peace.

For ecocide to become international law it would need the support of 86 nations to amend the International Criminal Court's Statute of Rome.Higgins hinted that there are signs of growing diplomatic support for her proposals behind closed doors.

The trial itself could not have been more genuine and would have sent shudders through corporate bosses watching the live Sky News stream. The chief executives in the dock might have been actors but the judge, lawyers and jury were real. So too were incidents on which the crimes were based – an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the mining of Tar Sands in Alberta.

The jury took just 50 minutes to return a not guilty verdict in the former event and two unanimous guilty convictions in the latter. At the hearing's dramatic climax, the two performing executives shook their heads in dismay as the judge passed the rulings.

Now the mock court has adjourned, can we expect a real ecocide trial in the near future? And would this be the most effective way of protecting the natural world?

There is no doubt that the mass destruction of global ecosystems – living communities of plants and animals – is happening at an alarming and accelerating rate.

It is also clear that businesses are rarely held accountable. A Guardian article last year reported that the cost of pollution and other damage to the natural environment caused by the world's biggest companies would wipe out more than one-third of their profits if they were held financially responsible.

Implementing an international crime of ecocide has a number of benefits. It would stop damaging activity where other measures have failed. It would be a crime of consequence (actual damage caused), rather than intent. It would be focused on preventing harm rather than appointing blame. And it would enshrine into law the protection of the natural world upon which we all depend for our prosperity and quality of life.

The law of ecocide — as used in the mock trial – might need some modifications but this would not be an insurmountable hurdle. For example, some citizens might reject the idea of protecting "the peaceful enjoyment" of territory by inhabitants when they have to put up with their own disturbances – such as a busy motorway or airport.

And how is "extensive destruction" of an ecosystem to be interpreted? Could this include the building of a new urban centre or, perhaps, large wind farm?

A far bigger problem might be convincing nations to pass legislation to which they might be liable themselves. Most nations would be guilty of ecocide to some degree and heads of states would be just as accountable as chief executives.

Indeed, one of the most intriguing aspects of the mock trial was whether the defendants were scapegoats for ecocide on a much larger scale than the operations of their companies. Christopher Parker QC even compared the case to the biblical story of the slaughter of a sacrificial goat as an offering of people's sins on the Jewish Day of Atonement.

After all, the companies in the trial were engaging in legal activities in Alberta and strictly conforming to state regulations. A recent report has found that over the next 15 years oil sands projects in the region will add over $2tn (£1.2tn) to Canadian GDP and create nearly 500,000 jobs.

If the Canadian government and citizens, backed by western pension funds, support dirty oil exploration, are the extraction companies to blame? Or should such destructive activity be illegal on moral grounds in the same way that genocide, even if it had popular support, should be strictly outlawed and condemned?

This dilemma demonstrates the possible downside of an ecocide crime: the lack of responsibility shared by all. Citizens may rightly demand better protection of the environment but at the same time will buy products from the most polluting companies and eat endangered fish stocks.

A similar apathy translates to finance and politics. Pensions continue to be invested in fossil fuel assets despite the fact that just 20% of the world's proven fossil fuel reserves can be burned while retaining a reasonable chance of keeping below a 2 degrees rise in global temperature. This week at the Conservative party conference, the chancellor attacked green laws without the prospect of facing political damage from the electorate.

The environmental crisis can only be solved by politicians, businesses and citizens working together. That is why the best solution is an international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and ensure companies are fully accountable for the pollution that they cause. A high carbon price is likely to make both deep sea drilling and tar sand extraction uneconomical.

But in the absence of any progress on this front, calls for an ecocide law will only grow louder and with some justification. Climate negotiators could even threaten this legislation as a last resort. While such a move would help prevent environmental destruction, there would be many sacrificial goats along the way.

The Aldersgate Group is an alliance of leaders from business, politics and society that drives action for a sustainable economy.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox