I would expect companies to count plane emissions when their employees go on business trips, but not on holidays.
I would also expect companies to count emissions produced by their employees when they work remotely, which should be a part of the total emissions of their home.
Sure, they may not be able to get an exact number, and it will be lots of estimates, but it does not mean that we should accept some approximate statement such as "We're trying our best"
If they didn't receive those high salaries they wouldn't be able to take those personal trips. The more employees the higher the multiplier. So what are we exactly offsetting.
But it makes no sense to attribute the personal decision of the employee into the carbon footprint. Because paying a high salary does not require that the person take airplane vacations. Some don't. And for those that do, they would have the option to pay to reverse or offset those emissions.
Should the company also reduce their carbon footprint calculations since paying employees more will make then more likely to own a tesla or other electric?
On average though, a reasonable very rough assumption is 0.5 kg CO2 / dollar (from what I read). You could make a complex model, but simply saying money = consumption = CO2 is a straightforward starting point.
A given employee might or might not fly or whatever. But statistically, the average is going to be pretty predictable, and it's not intellectually honest to pretend that because one doesn't know individual behavior, the average could be anything.
I would expect companies to count plane emissions when their employees go on business trips, but not on holidays.
I would also expect companies to count emissions produced by their employees when they work remotely, which should be a part of the total emissions of their home.
Sure, they may not be able to get an exact number, and it will be lots of estimates, but it does not mean that we should accept some approximate statement such as "We're trying our best"