When I’m on-site, my house is set to a significantly lower temperature during the day. Scheduled thermostats have been around long enough that I assume that’s the norm.
But then you need a surge in power to put it back from lo_temp to hi_temp when you get back home, I honestly don't know if it costs more or less than just maintaining it at hi_temp, and what are the orders of magnitude involved.
The first order approximation is that the heat loss between the inside and outside is linear with the temperature difference (delta-T) between them. So, if the delta-T is 10°C when occupied and allowed to rise to 14°C when unoccupied for 8 hours, there is a small savings. When the heating system is then commanded to recover the temperature, it will generally do a longer, single run (which for fossil fuel equipment is more efficient than a series of small runs, but for heat pumps is not significantly different [unless it engages emergency backup, which is far worse])
Overall, it's a small win, partially offset in the heating season by the heat gain from human occupancy and activity. It's almost surely not enough of a win to sum up to pay for the conditioning of an entire office building that would otherwise not be heated beyond "don't freeze the plumbing".
Presumably a 15 degree F or whatever lower temp (and reduced use of electricity for other purposes) during the day does reduce costs somewhat. However, for most people, commuting is almost certainly a significantly larger expense.
Obviously this is highly dependent on where you live…which gets back to my original point that there are so many variables it probably isn’t possible to declare one option better for the environment. Fwiw, in the UK I actively turn heat on and off depending on when it’s needed. It would never, ever, be on when I’m out, unless I was going out of town for a while and had to consider things like frozen pipes.
