Your proposal is comparable to saying that checks and balances are not needed in a democracy, politicians just need to govern "right".
This is about incentivising scientists to do the right thing instead of merely demanding it, like you do.
How is advocating for a new set of best practices any more "demanding" or wishful than a regime of obligatory replication? And how is this categorically different from current practices such as peer review, disclosing conflicts of interest, an IRB, etc.?