Reading recommendations for the problem of consequentialist scope?

Deter­min­ing which scope of out­comes to con­sider when mak­ing a de­ci­sion seems like a difficult prob­lem for con­se­quen­tial­ism. By “scope of out­comes” I mean how far into the fu­ture and how many links in the causal chain to in­cor­po­rate into de­ci­sion-mak­ing. For ex­am­ple, if I’m as­sess­ing the com­par­a­tive good­ness of two char­i­ties, I’ll need to have some method of com­par­ing fu­ture im­pacts (per­haps “con­sider im­pacts that oc­cur in the next 20 years”) and flow-through con­tem­po­ra­ne­ous im­pacts (per­haps “con­sider the ac­tions of the char­i­ta­ble re­cip­i­ent, but not the ac­tions of those they in­ter­act with”).

I’m us­ing “con­se­quen­tial­ist scope” as a short­hand for this type of de­ter­mi­na­tion be­cause I’m not aware of a com­mon-us­age word for it.

Con­se­quen­tial­ist scope seems both (a) im­por­tant and (b) difficult to think about clearly, so I want to learn more about it.

Does any­one have read­ing recom­men­da­tions for this? Philos­o­phy pa­pers, blog posts, books, what­ever. I didn’t en­counter it in Rea­sons and Per­sons, but I’ve only read the first third so far.