Purpose: This paper reframes coopetition, the simultaneous pursuit of cooperation and competition through the lens of Taoist yin–yang philosophy. This paper advances an ontologically explicit claim: that cooperation (yin) and competition (yang) stand in a relation of mutual entailment, such that one pole structurally generates the conditions for the other, rather than merely coexisting with it as in dualistic Western accounts. The purpose of this study is to show how this monistic ontology advances theory and practice in business-to-business (B2B) marketing. Design/methodology/approach: A purposive systematic literature review structured by the theory–context–characteristics–method framework is conducted on foundational coopetition and paradox-theory works, supplemented by multi-industry evidence from technology alliances, pharmaceutical outsourcing and airline networks. Recent market data are used to illustrate measurable yin–yang dynamics in inter-firm relationships. Findings: The study develops a monistic dynamic rebalancing model of coopetition, showing that firms achieve resilience and innovation not by eliminating tensions but by continuously shifting between cooperative and competitive logics that mutually entail one another. Industry evidence is consistent with the claim that coopetition is structurally embedded in B2B ecosystems, e.g. Apple and Samsung’s supply rivalry, pharmaceutical consortia feeding downstream exclusivity and airline alliances institutionalizing tension. Practical implications: Managers should cultivate paradoxical cognition, design flexible structures and invest in dynamic capabilities that enable rebalancing across contexts. For B2B marketers, yin–yang thinking highlights how cooperation can strengthen differentiation and how rivalry can reinforce collaboration. Originality/value: This paper develops an ontologically explicit monistic account of coopetition for B2B marketing, extending Eastern philosophical treatments of paradox from organization theory into the B2B marketing domain. The contribution is positioned as complementary-in-practice and distinct-in-ontology. Six falsifiable propositions are advanced; empirical validation is left to subsequent work.