Another way to put pressure on the South African government was the “Sullivan Code of Conduct.” The code was established by the Reverend Leon Sullivan, in 1977, to guide American companies doing business in South Africa. This strategy was developed for those people believing more in “constructive engagement,” or working from inside the system for change. This “code of conduct” was different from the previously mentioned strategies in that it did not attempt to restrict businesses from operating or investing in South Africa. The idea behind the six original principles, also called the “Sullivan Principles,” was to encourage American businesses to treat their employees in South Africa the same way they would treat them if they were in America (Mangaliso 228). The principles seemed simple enough: end segregation, and provide equal pay and equal job advancement. Nothing that a respectable company would object to, but the South Africans felt it was a challenge to their authority. According to David Gergen, of U.S. News & World Report, by August 1995, more than 125 companies were voluntarily taking part in the Sullivan principles (70). Sullivan felt the principles were not doing enough, and so more aggressive principles were added, including corporate support for civil disobedience. The principles still did not have the anticipated effect, and by 1987, Sullivan decided to call for a complete withdrawal of American companies from South Africa (Manning 10). One of the major shortcomings of the original Sullivan principles was that they did not directly address the fact that blacks had no economic or political rights in South Africa; they only dealt with their workplace treatment (Mangaliso 229).

President Carter’s administration briefly put America back in support of the anti-apartheid policies of the rest of the world, but when his term was up, so was the support. Ronald Reagan’s policy of constructive engagement was in contrast to congressional calls for economic sanctions (Rodman 321). Constructive engagement was the belief that working with the South African government was the best way to bring about change; however, others believed that trying that approach for over three hundred years without success was long enough. In a show of opposition to Reagan’s constructive engagement, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) agreed that unless there was forward movement toward ending apartheid, they would vote against any new loans to South Africa (Rodman 321).