Our name stands for "Collaborative Cash Flow Optimization" and we maintain a web platform that dynamically prices working capital so companies of any size can connect with each other to meet cash flow needs without involving traditional financial intermediaries like banks or financial factors.
One question perhaps worth asking: Why do this piece and the many similarly tiresome pieces preceding it mostly fail to mention how higher salaries offered would motivate graduates and other unemployed people to acquire these missing skills?
Put a different way, fifteen or so years ago: "Economists who have studied occupational shortages generally hold the view that in an unconstrained market, supply will equal demand at the 'true' market price. If demand exceeds supply, salaries will be bid up until the market clears." 
Also of interest but perhaps unrelated, "At Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase average pay slipped by about 5% in the first nine months of last year, a figure that is probably representative of the wider industry." 
In Europe, money isn't everything, especially for youngsters choosing to study for an academic degree. The idea of "following your dreams" or studying what you like is still big. Because studying is often subsidized, people can make that choice easily because they won't have an enormous amount of dept in return for a "worthless" degree. Before the crisis finding a job with whatever degree wasn't hard and the previous crisis (1980s) didn't do much to prevent choosing "worthless" degrees either.
Most of the people growing up since the late 1960s have had the possibility to do whatever they wanted without regard for future earnings and sustainability of their lives. Just re-schooling people with degrees in the humanities, fun-studies, social sciences, and so on to science, technology and engineering sounds easier than it is for these people have made conscious choices to neglect and dismiss mathematics and science courses since leaving primary school. To some degree, their whole social and cultural being seems to be incompatible with that of science and technology.
To be bypassed at all times by anyone interested in making a buck on others' data, with a bit less in the way of scruples.
You cannot prevent it all, and not all of it is even illegitimate - how can you tell the difference, if not on a case-by-case, human-decided basis? In which case, the cost would be astronomical; I'm not paying it. It'd be wrong sometimes anyway. At best, you can make it difficult for legitimate uses to exist, and do only a little to slow the illegitimate. And push them underground, making finding and stopping them harder than it already is.
Heck, Facebook can be seen as a massive deanonymizer, and they exposed way more (and more accurate) info about me publicly through their API. Their ads were horrendously inaccurate, but prior to deleting my account they were probably the most accurate measure of "me" online by an order of magnitude. And any attempt to restrict public access to the data - useful for a number of services / applications - would make lots of legitimate uses impossible.
It likely depends on what kind of B2B service you are promoting, the size of the companies you are targeting, and how deeply your service needs to integrate with the target customers' existing software systems. In my experience marketing to businesses via the same channels that work well for consumer web products is no easy task.
Give serious consideration to making a real effort to discover, meet, interview, get to know, perhaps even partner with a talented salesperson with great personal and/or professional connections in the industry you're trying to reach.
Here are a couple posts that you might find useful:
The main advantage of one-database-per-business-customer isn't isolating customer data, it's the ability to serve business customers who are willing to pay for heavy customizations and the extra support those entail, while not polluting your core offering through the introduction of attributes, features, etc. for which other customers will have no use.
For a lot of B2B web applications aimed at serving "bigger" companies, customer adoption can still hinge on scotch-sipping and rounds of golf more than well-placed sign-up buttons or great viral marketing campaigns. It's been argued of late that maybe this part of the industry is becoming more "web-like", but in any case it's not very web-like yet, when it comes to sealing deals.
Many times the companies who were convinced by your talented sales team to buy your product eventually demand that the product be tailored to their (sometimes very company-specific) needs. If you want to keep the customer happy, or maybe just keep the customer, you have to keep customizing.
One could make the argument that the most talented sales teams are the ones that sign deals with customers who are willing to "stay on core", but over time as your customers' own businesses evolve, the challenge grows for everyone involved.
it's the ability to serve business customers who are
willing to pay for heavy customizations and the extra
support those entail
You'd need to have flags in the app itself, which would likely turn into an unmaintainable monstrosity. If you have a handful of large clients, are heavily customizing the app for each one, are using a modern framework like Django or Rails and a DVCS, the obvious maintainable approach is to have full individual installs, forks for each install and a modular application that pushes the customizations into pluggable components as much as possible.