Pricing transparency might be a sensible approach, but I imagine you'd need international agreement to do so in lock-step, to avoid unintended arbitrage between countries. Such a setup could also perhaps favour non-value-adding middlemen, who would be able to provide unit-price transparency for a product they don't manufacture, and therefore which has a meaningless SKU (reseller-001), that avoids impact on the ultimate seller.

Don't disagree about this being a wider issue, but it's hard to see how you ever force price parity, short of published price lists. But we still have "list price", and people will still negotiate discounts below that "list price". I imagine in the long run, even across industry, we'd just end up back where we're at right now, with opaque price reductions and rebates, and potentially that process ends up more corrupt, as it's less visible?

I don't know what the fix is, but I'm not sure it would be as easy as just requiring everyone to publish transparent pricing and go for pricing parity.

Hence why I mentioned contract transparency. Don't just publish ideal lists, publish the contracts that actually end up being signed. That would also fix the obfuscating-middle-man problem (reseller-001 still needs to be defined somewhere).