The European Union (EU) has been regulating roaming since 1997, and has developed different policies aiming to promote transparency in prices and improve competitiveness across the members. With both positive and negative outcomes, the European Commission (EC) had a long learning process where different regulatory measures were introduced and modified according to the results obtained. Despite the fact regional mobile usage has been increasing since the first attempt on regulation, roaming has been limited by other factors such as wholesale and retail prices. While Europe faces challenges related to political extremism, large refugee influxes, economic stagnation, and scepticism related to European integration, the EC aimed for a tangible policy that could show the benefits of the supra-national body to the citizens. After different economic analyses commissioned by the EU showed a feasible possibility of eliminating roaming surcharges, a new step was proposed. Since mid-June 2017, mobile phone users across the European Economic Area (EEA) started experiencing a new European Union (EU) policy related to the roaming usage. The Roaming Like At Home (RLAH) policy became a milestone in the European political process towards a Digital Single Market. Mobile users were benefitted by avoiding roaming surcharges when travelling across countries of the EEA, while telecom operators were limited in the maximum prices they could charge to other foreign operators for the wholesale market. Operators were protected by fixed price caps and a Fair Use Policy (FUP) aimed to avoid abuses from users, as the differences between domestic markets across Europe are still large. The EC based the decision in a market failure of the roaming market, which needed regulation to be solved. By analysing the behaviour of the market, the prices across the Union, among other factors, the EC believed that the RLAH policy would be a correct regulatory approach to solve the market failure, while promoting a Digital Single Market across countries. However, the justification was based merely in economic values, usually obtained from a Neo-classical (NCE) or New Institutional (NIE) economic perspective. The social values behind the policy were not explicitly considered in the analysis and were not used as justification for the decision process. As different journalists, organizations and influential persons argue that the EU has become a technocratic body where the voice of Europeans is not heard, it becomes paramount to understand what is behind the European policies and if the social values are being implicitly considered by the stakeholders involved in the decision-making process. Thus, this thesis aims to answer the following research question: “How can we assess the societal values related to the implementation of the Roaming Like At Home (RLAH) policy of the European Union for the case of the Netherlands?” The report initially develops a deep analysis on the different steps and motivations of the EC related to the policy, especially in the regulations from 2007 and onwards. It aims to understand the reasons behind the regulations, and concludes that both NCE and NIE are not enough to justify the intervention, using Original Institutional Economics (OIE) for it. A discussion on the public and social values is followed, where specific definitions are used to determine what are the most important social values to be considered within the policy. With the help of experts, a short list of ten values is obtained. A stakeholder analysis is used to determine which are the actors involved in the policy, including those supra-national bodies, domestic and international lobby groups, telecom operators and regulatory bodies. By using the Best-Worst Method (BWM), a Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) method which allows to determine hierarchies between non-measurable criteria, the short list of values is used as criteria for surveys performed to those stakeholders willing to answer. In order to determine the position of the Dutch population, as this report scope is limited to the Netherlands, a combination of three stakeholders is used to determine the hierarchy of the social values: the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Consumentenbond and the Bedrijfstelecommunicatie Grootgebruikers (BTG). The results of the report show alignment between the hierarchy of values of the EC and the Dutch people’s representatives, but strong differences between the latter and the regulators and telecom representatives. Although the stakeholder analysis does show alignment regarding publicly-available interests of some of the stakeholders, such as economic values, the intangible interests seen in the results of the hierarchy demonstrate a different guiding compass for each organization. The thesis also shows how the actual approach for the determination of the value of a policy is not considering the intangible values that are behind any human person or organization. It is proposed to promote thinking in “humane” markets, rather than perfect markets, and to consider non-measurable criteria to assess the final value of a policy. It also questions whether the policy values can be separated from the individual values, as there is a close relation between them; thus, avoiding considering the individual value perspective of citizens could lead to future problems in the values a policy defends. As the research faces different limitations, several future steps are proposed. Firstly, it is proposed to analyse whether the results obtained can be discussed with those representatives of the Dutch population in the parliament by comparing their expectations with the answers obtained in the BWM, aiming to analyse the representativeness of political decision-makers towards this policy. Secondly, the research also proposes using the results of the value hierarchy, and attempting to create a Willingness To Pay for values, as some of the considered ones could be measurable in an utilitarian perspective. A third proposal refers to analyse how the hierarchy of values of the policy differs across the domestic markets in Europe by using theories in transplantation of policy, aiming to overcome the geographical limitation of this thesis. Finally, a different theoretical approach could be used with the capability theory, focusing the criteria to be used in the future capabilities of the population, rather than the functionings.